
JV 

EfcAs 

1906 


return ' 


ANDOVE 




ENTER 


i.. H' U'.-, .:,E- Uj'}T.:... 

• i'[' ’ ‘s'. •• \ ?" ■' '• - 

. ■• r- ** .' ‘ . i; \ i 1' ^ i^. 

-V*•=:-,'- 

■■ :< ■''('."'.' •.‘ i' -: I.' 1 • ^ ■; j ■■ ^!! ■ ■ i -'', V. Tj 
> .-. (' AAA '1; ] 

u: ’ ' 'a'UE- 













































-i 










< ~f>- < 

' Y *' r.\ <= 

o t ,> i^^m v^ieCr^ oo <. 

~, -r o 4-7* >- 

0 ■ o 0 

==^ O aV </^- o '” c, \V tA Z '<' 

^ v*'' '^oo' 

'°°''' -nt- ” 

'O '* oY' '-’ 

C> V ^ ® ^ 

' ^ T- O t. « 


N c 




' ‘Z’ A^ 

i^A. <»r '^. V r 

° *4 

. <\v t/^-, ® liy 0S\^>, "" .r 

^»<J>"^ V , tj' *fc5^-A OV ' 

• >■ • " '‘‘o o' r ■; V 

" >0q, • o j wfflsa 

^ ^ ° -nj- ^ 

'^' * mm^i, ° '^'' ^ 

» 'V 'S^ o V 



> ^ V * 0 ^ 

?■ i<y cj, « 






' ,0^ a'?' 

S O r ''/> -5 N O V 

^ . SlB *. '\r._ aV 

Z V •" 

aV <?' 



J’ •#' ° 

s . ■ " <5' ■» - -i o > 

A vis ^ W <1 X \G 
















* s' 

V^' -OoN . 



''^‘ V 

- 

41 k 

^ . 0 c> 

•V '\ ✓ 

" .0 N 0^' 

j.0^ . " \ Z.''r C‘ V' 

'P^. - r <3 C. * 

)X' <k 


•a 

/ jr V-* 

vT'V’ .. '■^'■‘•.T 

f? cii * - A^ ^ 

/)l, c.^ **■ « ^V> 

^ 1 '5 

.V'.. > 




0, V •* <0^ <• ^ A 'Td ' 

^ Z,s^Zh'^' •^. a\ ^ 0{(j?ZZ^ ^ 

« " -» '' ^o.cZ 

p- 



y >j- 

u 0 N 0 y 

oV ^ « 

•« 



.0^ c'^' 



.i> ■ < 

s^V ' ,. 

•V ^ ^ * o 

A' jt^nT/A^ -f 

0^ *' j^WZ/'kA^^ <>^ V 

•< ^ r\' 



„ , « " 'W' 

S o * / ^ ® ^ /* 0 

0^ c '> ^ V ^ 

V .WTaax 





o 0^ 


V 

» c» 

" .V < 

-i oV ^ 

^ ONC- 





< 

D ___ 

* vO O * ^ < -7*/ ^ 

t#- -4" r\ ^ p "*^1/ 

^ 0 N 0 \V V * 0 , S '> O 

<’ '^V> \V ■*• jA^^/h, ■'^ c^^ 1 

-• ^ 'V “ z 7 

lG^’ ® ® ■ 'A, 

C^ * ^ CLT ^ .V c^ ^ 

^ ^o»v'^ .^G'^ . ^.''^..s'' A ... 0 * >>'*“ 



















































59th Congress, \ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
fst Session* j 


/ Document 
I No. 847. ^ 


COMPILATION FROM THE RECORDS OF THE 
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION 

OF 



FACTS CORCERRIRG THE ERFORCEMERT 


OF THE 


CHIRESE-EXaUSIOR LAWS. 


LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, 
SUBMITTING, IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY OF THE 
HOUSE, A REPORT AS TO THE ENFORCEMENT 
OF THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


MAY 25, 1906: 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
and ordered to be printed. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIGE. 

> -i ) > ) 

1906, 


> > 


3 A. > > ) 


) f 










i 



\ 


J < 
i. i 


^ ^ t ^< ( I € 

.,C 4 t 

•j / ' ^ t. *■ f f < c‘ 

> I « £ ^ c. C f' 

<. ( ^ ( 1 < < 


((< ccc 

< r. C t 

f c « < t n 

lie < 

till i * 




ijf- .it 

S f 


<■ f 


1- A 'V 
1 

( < 
4 


I 


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 


Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

W ashing ton ^ May 18, 1906. 

Sir : In compliance with the request contained in House resolution 
No. 408, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, that I send to the House 
of Representatives certain information with reference to the enforce¬ 
ment of the Chinese-exclusion laws, I have the honor to transmit 
herewith a report which has been submitted to me by the Commis¬ 
sioner-General of Immigration. 

Respectfully, V. H. Metcalf, 

Secretary. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

3 



I* • 









'H 



t. - ^ ►'r J, ‘ 

■* , ■_ ’ . • • i-il. 




W'j '•€ V i" 1; '*' • ■'.” **''*'' 

t. / >.5 M ^ *^1* ~ ^ ‘ ^ 

i ,T;-.i>n'■' ■' 


3 

f 


‘ ■ ^ -.’i: 


‘^ ■ » ■ • ; ■ ^ 

.M ; <; :•■ i Ki :• ■' • - 






' ,TT7 


1 1 ■ 


m 

v) 'vi^i ‘'•' '■' '>'^1 ^ v:?^ 

:.J .fv . ' 

nr/ 


/J? 


'■ ’* v' ■'■ ■'■:.*'•< '> 


1' ♦ 1 ^ ; '■ ' I ■ ' ^/ 

U, rl ,V ■v.f-:-” 










;« 


■ p 

'..Jj 


. r 


V, .K ; 


1 ■ I 


•xt« ; 


1 









COMPILATION OF FACTS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF 

THE CHINESE-EXCLCSION LAWS. 


CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Methods of enforcing Chinese-excliision laws employed prior to transfer 
of .iurisdiction to Bureau of Immigration. General difficulties encoun¬ 
tered. Divided authority and attendant difficulties. 

Description of plan followed in succeeding chapters of this paper. 

Prior to the passage of the act of Congress approved June 6, 1900 
(31 Stat., 588-611), making appropriations for sundry civil expenses, 
and for other purposes, by which the Commissioner-General of Immi¬ 
gration was charged, in addition to his other duties, with the adminis¬ 
tration of the Chinese exclusion laws, the enforcement of the treaty 
and statutory provisions in which were embodied the exclusion policy 
of this country was vested in the office of the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury. As most of the duties of enforcing the laws devolved upon col¬ 
lectors and deputy collectors of customs located at the various ports of 
this country, at first the division of customs of the office of the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury was invested with general supervisory powers; 
but at a later date, it is understood because of the extensive character 
of the other duties with which the said division was charged, this gen¬ 
eral supervisory power was transferred by the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury to the division of his office known as the division of special agents, 
the supervising special agent being constituted the chief administra¬ 
tive officer, under the Secretary of the Treasuiy. By this arrange¬ 
ment the various details of administering the laws remained in the 
hands of the collectors of customs, and it was only in a very general 
way that the division of special agents exercised its supervisory 
powers. 

The Chinese exclusion laws were then recognized, as they still are, 
notwithstanding certain changes which have been made in them, as 
among the most difficult on the statute books to enforce. This condi¬ 
tion arose from three causes: First, under the arrangement above 
described there was a divided responsibility, due to the disconnected 
official agencies through which the laws were administered, and it 
was not possible to effect the organization and systematization neces¬ 
sary for even a reasonably thorough enforcement of the laws; second, 
a certain element of the citizenship of this country has never believed 
in the exclusion policy, being actuated either by strictly interested 
motives or by the missionary spirit, and the persons forming that 
element are never willing to assist, and are often ready and glad to 

6 



6 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


oppose, the enforcement of the law; third, the laws relate to a people 
who, according to all recognized authorities, are deficient in a sense of 
the moral obligation of an oath, and who in their political views hold 
caste in higher esteem than law, and are ‘‘ clannish ” to the highest 
degree. 

The foregoing remarks of an introductory character are inserted 
for the reason that when the act of June 6, 1900, was passed, transfer¬ 
ring the adminstration of the laws to this Bureau, the above-men¬ 
tioned conditions existed; those of the first class continued to exist 
in their entirety up to the time of the formation of the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, and the consolidation under the control of the 
Commissioner-General of Immigration of the various divided branches 
of the administration of the law, and those of the second and third 
classes, being of a permanent character, of course, must still be met, 
and, as far as possible, offset. 

SCOPE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THIS REPORT. 

In the succeeding pages of this paper an attempt is made to out¬ 
line comprehensively, and at the same time as briefly as the magni¬ 
tude of the subject will permit, the various unfavorable circumstances 
and conditions, both natural and artificial, which must be overcome 
in order to carry out, with any degree of reasonable certainty, the 
plainly expressed will of the people of this country, as embodied in 
the various legislative enactments concerning the policy of Chinese 
exclusion. For the sake of convenience and clearness, the subject is 
divided into ten general heads, under which are arranged, in natural 
sequence and chronologically, so far as possible, the various subjects 
which fall within the scope of such headings. This arrangement of 
course results in some repetition, but that fault is avoided as far as 
possible by cross references. 

To the fullest extent practicable, the sources from which the infor¬ 
mation conveyed by this paper is gathered are cited, by inserting in 
parentheses the Bureau of Immigration file numbers of the papers 
constituting the original records from which the data is collated, or 
the titles and pages of the publications consulted. The paper is in¬ 
tended as a statement of facts^ and the attempt is made not to insert 
therein any matter of an argumentative character, except so far as 
such matter is included in quoted communications and can not be 
eliminated without destroying their sense. The arrangement of the 
chapters in the order in which they appear, with the one devoted to a 
direct discussion of the boycott last, has its significance. It is thought 
that a clear, comprehensive understanding of the causes leading to 
and of the object of the boycott can only be gained by a consideration 
of the contents of each and all of the several chapters in conjunction 
with the one devoted especially to that subject. 


CHAPTER 11. 
CONDITIONS IN GENERAL. 


Early conclusion that exclusion laws are among most difficult to 
enforce; that opinion more than verified by later experience. Discus¬ 
sion of subject at large; secret but powerful influence against laws in 
this country; rejection and expulsion of Chinese compared with rejec¬ 
tion and expulsion of other aliens. Exclusion: San Francisco most im¬ 
portant port; coaching expedients—charts, peanut-shell letters, letters 
in articles of food, “ Gold-tooth ” case; condition of detention quarters; 
other Pacific ports; Canadian border ports; Canadian border at large; 
Canadian Pacific agreement; Mexican border, extent of smuggling 
across—illustrations; Atlantic coast ports; Atlantic coast at large. Ex¬ 
pulsion : Duties of interior officers; conducting investigations; conduct¬ 
ing arrests; United States commissioners’ and district courts’ decisions 
favoring C'hine.se; “ commissioners’ certificates ; ” “ McGettrick certifi¬ 
cates ; ” forgiflg and counterfeiting various certificates; substitutions 
of Chinese desiring to return to China for those ordered deported. 
Perfection of plans, under circumstances produced by act of February 
14. 1903, for effective exclusion and expulsion. Table showing applica¬ 
tions, admissions, and rejections. 

Tn the first annual report submitted by the Commissioner-General 
of Immigration after the enforcement of the Chinese-exchision laws 
was vested in that official by the act of June 6, 1900, it was stated that 
“ an experience of but one year has been sufficient to convince the 
Bureau that probably no system of legislation enacted thus far by 
Congress has more numerous or serious obstacles to surmount in order 
to become reasonably effective of its purpose ” than the lavs embody¬ 
ing the exclusion policy of the Government. There has been no 
reason to change that opinion; in fact, each year’s experience has but 
added new reasons for holding the view then expressed. In this 
chapter the attempt is made to discuss in a general way, and yet with 
sufficient particularity to render such discussion an emphatic state¬ 
ment of reasons based upon facts, tlie circumstances and conditions 
which it has been necessary to meet and overcome in the endeavor of 
fhe Bureau to faithfully perform the duties with which it is charged 
by the legislative enactment above mentioned. 

As pointed out in the preceding chapter, the subject of Chinese 
exclusion, from the view point of administrative officers, naturally 
falls into certain definite divisions. Those divisions of the subject 
are treated in later chapters of this paper, bearing appropriate head¬ 
ings and subheadings, but this particular part of the paper is devoted 
to conditions which affect several or all of the special divisions and 
which, therefore, can not be arranged within any particular one of 
them. 

DIFFICULTIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS. 


The reasons which contribute to the difficulty of enforcing the 
Chinese-exclusion laws are briefly stated in the introductory chapter 
of this paper (pp. 5, 6). The experience of tli^ Bureau and its field 

7 


8 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


officers has led them to the conviction that there is a secret but power¬ 
ful influence always at work in the United States with the object of 
importing coolies into this country. As pointed out on pages 79 to 80 
of the Commissioner-General’s last annual report, this obstacle to the 
enforcement of the laws is all the more serious because it can not be 
located with precision, nor can the individuals or organizations 
through which it exerts itself be identified. That it exists there can 
be no question, for there is no Chinese steerage passenger so destitute 
that money practically without limit can not be commanded to pay 
for his landing in the United States, and he can command legal advice 
of the most expensive counselors, can purchase witnesses to testify to 
any state of facts which it is desired to establish, and, if he is rejected, 
can carry his case through all of the ordinary judicial tribunals, and 
in many instances into the United States Supreme Court itself. 

As an illustration of this the case of Tom Hong v. United States 
(193 U. S., 519) is cited. The coolies who present themselves at the 
ports and along the borders of this country are almost Avithout excep¬ 
tion mere youths in age, and they are ignorant in the extreme, and 
often penniless and proAuded with little or no clothing in addition to 
that in which attired at the time of their arrival. 

These circumstances indicate beyond question that the expenses of 
such coolies are paid not by themselves, but by some organization 
interested in their importation for its own purposes. 

CHINESE COMPARED WITH OTHER ALIENS. 

Each year, under the immigration laAvs, aliens of all nationalities 
to a number infinitely in excess of the total arrivals of Chinese are 
annually returned to their native countries, and yet the administratiA^e 
officers experience practically no difficulty Avith the deportation of 
such persons, as compared with the bitterness and persistency with 
Avhich the rejection of Chinese is always met. Moreover, under the 
Chinese exclusion laws persons of that race found in this country 
engaged as laborers and not having in their possession the certificates 
required by the registration acts must be arrested on warrants sworn 
out before judicial officers, and are alloAved a judicial hearing of their 
cases, the privilege of appeal to the courts of highest resort being 
granted, even though the GoA^ernment itself can not appeal from a 
decision rendered in favor of the Chinamen by a United States com¬ 
missioner; whereas, under the immigration hiAvs, aliens of other 
nationalities found in this country in Adolation thereof are arrested 
upon departmental warrants and are granted a hearing before admin¬ 
istrative officers, their right of appeal and delay, Avith its consequent 
opportunities for preparing a defense, being limited to a review of 
the hearings by the Department. In this manner, during the last 
fiscal year, for instance, 845 aliens Avere arrested and expelled from 
the United States, almost entirely at the cost of the transportation 
lines by Avhich they had originally been brought here, and during the 
same period the United States Government expended approximately 
$68,000 in deporting 621 Chinese laborers who had been given the 
benefit, at an additional heavy expense to the United States, of iudi- 
cial trials. 

The general conditions which constitute the difficulties and dis¬ 
advantages attaching to a reasonably successful enforcement of the 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLTJSION LAWS. 


9 


law arise in two ways, and therefore fall naturally under two head¬ 
ings—first, exclusion from the country, and, second, expulsion from 
the country. These divisions overlap to a certain extent when it 
comes to a consideration of the land boundaries of the United States, 
but for the purpose of convenience the subject will be treated under 
the two heads. 


EXCLUSION. 

FRAUDULENT ENTRIES AT SAN FRANCISCO. 

The port of first importance is, of course, San Francisco, that being 
the port of entry for Chinese most conveniently reached from trans¬ 
pacific points. The smuggling of Chinese is not, of course, in the 
ordinary sense of that term, possible at San Francisco. Persons 
interested in the importation of coolies therefore resort to the expe¬ 
dients of coaching and using fraudulent papers, and the chief diffi¬ 
culty which has been encountered in this respect has been due to the 
fact that no regularly equipped immigration station has been fur¬ 
nished by the Government for a proper isolation and examination 
of applicants. The Chinamen, upon arrival at San Francisco, are 
placed in what is known as the detention shed, on the Pacific Mail 
dock, such building belonging to and being maintained by the steam¬ 
ship company. It has been necessary to observe the utmost caution 
and to guard this station with great care in order to prevent the 
coaching of its inmates by residents of San Francisco interested in 
their landing; and even with the exercise of the utmost caution 
various schemes for furnishing the detained Chinamen with infor¬ 
mation as to the details to which they should testify have been 
detected from time to time. The use of fraudulent section 6 certifi¬ 
cates is described in the chapter on the exempt classes (p. 51) ; the 
fraudulent native claims are quite extensively illustrated in the chap¬ 
ter on natives (p. 91) ; the fraudulent domiciled-merchant expedient 
is described in the chapter on that class (p. 60), and the introduction 
of Chinese as “ wives and minor children ” is outlined in the chapter 
bearing that heading (p. 67). All of these devices are, of course, 
employed at San Francisco to a greater extent than anywhere else, 
but it is not necessary to describe them further at this point. 

COACHING DEVICES. 

Many instances of the cunning devices adopted by the Chinese to 
coach applicants might be cited. For instance, in a letter dated 
November 18, 1905, the commissioner of immigration at San Fran¬ 
cisco furnished the Bureau with a copy of a general coaching chart 
for use by Chinamen seelving entry as alleged natives, the object 
being to post them concerning the streets of Chinatown, San Fran¬ 
cisco, the location of public buildings, etc., and to furnish them in 
addition with dates of the occurrences of noted events in Chinatown, 
thus enabling them to respond intelligently to the line of questioning 
usually adopted in such cases. Ten thousand coihes of this chart 
were published and distributed. (Bu. Im. file No. 12811 C.) Another 
interesting instance of coaching was brought to the Bureau’s atten¬ 
tion in January, 1906, in connection with an appeal of one Yee Wing 


10 ENFOECEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

Hong, who had been denied admission at San Francisco as an alleged 
native. This Chinaman had made various statements conflicting 
with those of his witnesses, and a coaching letter was sent hini by his 
friends in order to so post him that if he should be reexamined he 
would be able to claim that his former testimony had been given in 
mistake, and to correct it so as to make it agree with that of the 
witnesses. The device adopted to deliver this coaching letter was 
this: The letter was written in small characters on a slip of tissue 
paper, which was rolled tightly and placed inside of a large peanut 
shell, the two halves of Avhich were carefully glued together, and then 
placed in a bag of peanuts and sent to the Chinaman. (Bu. Im. file 
No. 14513 C.) See also the “gold tooth case.” (Bu. Im. file No. 
14530 C.) 

Previous attempts to coach by placing letters in articles of food 
had been frequently made, and had led to the observance of great 
care concerning food sent into the detention sheds to Chinese held 
therein. The peanut-shell device, a variation of those practices, was 
discovered in the particular case mentioned, and there is, of course, 
no way to determine for how long a time or how successfully it had 
been used in the past. This subject need not be followed farther at 
this point. If anyone is interested in pursuing it, he can find a num¬ 
ber of coaching letters written in Chinese and translated, on pages 469 
to 488 of Senate Keport No. 776 (part 2), Fifty-seventh Congress, 
first session. 

NEED OF NEW DETENTION STATION. 

The arrangements existing in San Francisco for the detention and 
care of Chinese awaiting examination have been the subject of more 
or less adverse comment at dift'erent times, and the immigration offi¬ 
cials have been criticised because of the cramped and meager condi¬ 
tions. The Immigration Service ought not, however, to be blamed 
in this connection, for it has always done the best that circumstances 
would permit to satisfactorily and comfortably care for the Chinese 
applicants. The detention quarters, as already stated, are the prop¬ 
erty of the steamship company. In the fall of 1902 the entire sub¬ 
ject was taken up with the steamship officials by the Commissioner- 
General, who visited San Francisco in November of that year, and 
made emphatic representations to the parties responsible for the con¬ 
dition of the quarters, with the result that the detention station was 
much improved. (Bu. Im. file No. 5986 C.) The law provides for 
the examination of Chinese on board ship, and the arrangement for 
their examination in the detention quarters was made with two 
objects in view, namely, to accommodate the transportation com¬ 
panies by removing the passengers from their vessels, thus obviating 
a serious inconvenience, and to release the passengers from the 
cramped and necessarily uncomfortable situation incident to remain¬ 
ing in the steerage of the vessel. AVlien the Commissioner-General 
induced the steamship companies to improve the detention quarters, 
the changes made therein were so extensive and satisfactory as to 
elicit the thanks of a representative of the Chinese Legation at this 
capital, and also of officers of the “ Six Companies ” in San Fran¬ 
cisco. Congress having recently provided for the erection of an 
immigration station on Angel Island, there can be no further cause 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


11 


for complaint on the part of anyone in this connection, and the possi¬ 
bilities for coaching and other fraudulent practices will be reduced 
to a minimum. 

SMUGGLING FROM LOWER CALIFORNIA. 

Although San Diego is a port of entry for Chinese, in recent years, 
but very few applicants have presented themselves at that port. The 
principal employment of the Chinese officers at San Diego is to pre¬ 
vent the smuggling of Chinamen in small boats from Lower Califor¬ 
nia. This smuggling has always been carried on to a considerable 
extent, and^ recently the patrol of the land border of southern Cali¬ 
fornia having been made thorough and effective, the smuggling 
by means of boats is believed to be even more extensive than usual. 
The most recent case occurred on March 1, 1906, when the schooner 
Neptune was captured in the act of smuggling 8 Chinamen into San 
Diego. (Bu. Im. file No. 14565 C.) 

CONDITIONS AT PORTLAND AND PUGET SOUND. 

At Portland, Oreg., no Chinamen now arrive from trans-Pacific 
ports, there being no line of passenger vessels plying between such 
ports and Portland. The officers there are confronted, however, 
with considerable difficulty in preventing the landing of Chinamen 
from vessels carrying Chinese crews, the courts in Portland not hav¬ 
ing rendered as strict decisions on the point as at most other places, 
and there being a large number of vessels entering that port on which 
Chinamen having no right to enter the United States are employed. 
(Bu. Im. file No. 13928 C.) 

Port Townsend, Wash., is the second port of entry in impor¬ 
tance. Arrangements for the reception and examination of China¬ 
men similar to those existing at San Francisco are employed at that 
place, and so far as the coaching of Chinamen and the use of fraudu¬ 
lent papers is concerned the conditions are the same and need not be 
here discussed. The officer in charge at Port Townsend is also in 
charge of the district of Washington, or, as it is frequently called, the 
“ Puget Sound district,” which is, perhaps, the most difficult section of 
this country to properly guard, the natural features of Puget Sound 
being such as to make the smuggling of Chinamen from British 
Columbia a comparatively easy operation, and many vessels carrying 
Chinese crews plying to the various ports on the sound. It is not an 
uncommon thing to capture large parties of Chinese being smuggled 
in on boats into this district, and several persons engaged regularly 
in the smuggling business have been apprehended and brought to 
trial. (Bu. Im. fi^le Nos. 6858 and 10964 C.) 

CONDITIONS ALONG CANADIAN BORDER. 

On the Canadian border there are four ports of entry for Chinese, 
viz, Sumas, Wash.; Portal, N. Dak.; Malone, N. Y., and Eichford, 
Vt. The first mentioned two are in isolated localities, and while they 
are used quite extensively by Chinamen leaving and returning to 
this country, the administrative officers have been allowed to proceed 
at such ports with the performance of their duties without serious 


12 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


interference by resort to writs of habeas corjDus or other dilatory 
proceedings. The conditions which rendered Malone such an impor¬ 
tant port of entry are descril)ed in the succeeding chapter devoted to 
a discussion of natives, the majority of the applicants at that port 
having been of that class. The attempt was made in the beginning 
to use Richford, Vt., as a landing point for natives, but a decision 
was promptly rendered by the district court for the northern district 
of Vermont which discouraged the smugglers and promoters inter¬ 
ested in that scheme (see case of United States v. Lue Yee, 124 F. R., 
303). Both Malone and Richford have, of course, been and are now 
used extensively by Chinese residents of this country in departing 
from and returning to the United States, but no trouble is experi¬ 
enced with the handling of that class of cases, except the detection of 
the various frauds practiced by domiciled merchants and domiciled 
laborers, described in detail in the chapters devoted to those classes, 
respectively, and the other ordinary frauds, consisting of the presen¬ 
tation of fictitious certificates of various kinds. 

SMUGGLING VIA CANADA. 

Since Canada placed a head-tax of $500 on Chinese entering that 
countiT, the duty of guarding the Canadian border has been much 
simplified, as the supply of Chinamen to be smuggled across has been 
practically limited to recruits gathered from among the Chinamen 
admitted to Canada prior to the assessment of the head tax men¬ 
tioned. Even now, however, the smuggling of Chinamen across the 
Canadian border is not as infrequent an occurrence as might be sup¬ 
posed, and in past years, esjiecially at such points as Buffalo, N. Y., 
and Detroit and Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., comparatively large forces of 
men have had to be stationed to watch for and capture Chinamen cross¬ 
ing into the United States; and it is known that numbers of Chinese 
persons have been brought across the border even in the wild district 
of northern Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Buffalo has been an 
especially important point in this connection, and a number of smug¬ 
glers and smuggled Chinamen have been cajitured in that locality. 
(Bu. Im. file Yos. 3889, 4033, 5202, 107T0, 10844, 11291, 11469, and 
12449 C.) As recently as November 2, 1905, a dozen Chinamen were 
caught while crossing the border at Rathdrum, Idaho. (Bu. Im. file 
No. 14377 C.) A number of such captures have also been made at 
Detroit. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 9955 and 11353 C.) 

In the chapter on natives (p. 91) there is a recital of the facts 
connected with the adoption of the agreement with the Canadian 
Pacific Railway Company, and of what was accomplished finally by 
means of that agreement. That circumstance, added to the benefits 
accruing to this country from the present policy of Canada of enforc¬ 
ing a head tax which is virtually prohibitive of Chinese immigration, 
has so simplified the enforcement of the law, and has enabled the 
Bureau of Immigration to establish such enforcement upon so satis¬ 
factory a basis that, so long as the two circumstances mentioned con¬ 
tinue to exist, the Bureau inclines to the belief that it has the Cana- 
dian-border situation well in hand, and can continue to exclude the 
Chinese along that border wnth at least a fair measure of success. In 
fact, it is thought that the promoters and smugglers will not be able 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


13 


to revive former conditions, especially in view of the Supreme Court 
decision in the Sing Tuck and Ju Toy cases (194 U. S., 161, and 198 
U. S.j 253). 

DIFFICULTIES ON MEXICAN BORDER. 

Haying been practically defeated at every turn along the Canadian 
frontier, the Chinamen who desire to enter this country are now turn¬ 
ing their attention more than ever to the opportunity afforded by the 
natural conditions existing along our southern frontier, and the 
Bureau finds itself confronted with a task there which promises to 
be equally as difficult as anything with which it has had to cope along 
the northern boundary line. Notwithstanding the fact that stations 
are now maintained at Brownsville, Kio Grande, Laredo, Eagle Pass, 
Del Rio, and El Paso, Tex., Bisbee, Nogales, and Yuma, Ariz., and 
Campo and Tia Juana, Cal., which stations are engaged not only in 
the examination of passengers crossing by rail, but in patrolling the 
border line in their vicinity, and watching the wagon roads and trails, 
the Bureau does not hesitate to express the opinion that many China¬ 
men, perhaps hundreds, cross the Mexican boundary into the United 
States every year. No definite figures can be furnished on this point, 
but the supposition is based upon the fact that in many of the in¬ 
stances in which Chinamen have been captured while being smuggled 
across, the circumstances were such as to render it fairly certain that 
the devices used in the unsuccessful attempt had met with success 
on some occasions. 

A few such cases will be mentioned with sufficient particularity to 
show the lengths to which the smugglers will go, and the risks which 
they are willing to take, with a vieAV to landing Chinamen in this 
country. It should be stated first, however, that all through north¬ 
ern Mexico, along the lines of railroad, are located so-called boarding 
houses and restaurants, which are the rendezvous of the Chinese and 
their smugglers, and the small towns and villages throughout this 
section are filled with Chinese coolies, whose only occupation seems 
to be lying in wait until arrangements can be perfected for carrying 
them across the border. In October, 1904, the Bureau detailed two of 
its most trustworthy and efficient interpreters, one from Boston and 
one from New York City, to New Mexico. These men, being un¬ 
known to the local Chinese, crossed into the Republic of Mexico and 
moved among the Chinese for some time, gathering information as 
to the operation of the smugglers and the occupation of the local 
Chinamen. It is partly upon the information thus gained and partly 
upon other data of a similar character, gathered in various ways, 
that the foregoing statement is made. (See Bu. In. file No. 10693 C.) 

CONDITIONS AT EL PASO. 

El Paso, Tex., by reason of its being so important a railroad center, 
both from the American and Mexican side of the boundary, is doubt¬ 
less the point at which, or in the vicinity of Avhich, a great deal of 
the smuggling is done. The inspector in charge there does not hesi¬ 
tate to express the opinion that such is the case, as will be seen from 
the following extract from his annual report dated June 30, 1905: 

From 150 to 200 unemployed Chinese coolies are in the detention quarters of 

the smuggling firms in Juarez at all times. ^ k i 

The only Chinese known to have left Juarez are perhaps 200 who boarded the 


14 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLTJSION LAWS 


Sierra Madre trains for Guzman and other points near the boundary line 
between Mexico and Arizona, perhaps with the idea that they could probably 
smuggle into the United States more easily across the Arizona boundary line. 

To summarize the above figures, it will be seen that during the past fiscal 
year 486 coolies are known to have arrived in Juarez, probably 46 coolies 
found employment in Juarez, practically 100 left for other border points, so 
that approximately 320 coolies have disappeared near the international bound¬ 
ary line in the vicinity of El Paso, and doubtless gained unlawful entry. 

The foregoing conclusions would not seem to refiect much credit upon the 
energy or ability of the officers of this station in enforcing the Chinese-exclu- 
sion laws. Inviting attention to the number (49) of arrests made during the 
fiscal year, however, there are other important factors to be taken into con¬ 
sideration. The Chinese population of El Paso, numbering about 350, is 
banded together as one man for the purpose of concealing and conveying into 
the interior of the country those Chinese coolies who have crossed the line. A 
number of instances have come to light during the fiscal year where it has been 
discovered that some of the most infiuential and respected Chinese business 
men of El Paso have been engaged in smuggling and secreting coolies in their 
establishments. Thus Chinese coolies were found secreted in the cellar of the 
building occupied by a prominent Chinese restaurant keeper, one square from 
the Federal building in El Paso. * * * certain alleys in El Paso 

houses occupied by Chinese have been constructed so that illegally resident 
Chinese can be concealed in chambers under the ground or spaces between the 
roof and ceiling. In fact, it is believed that the handling of Chinese coolies 
is the sole occupation of perhaps one-third of the Chinese population of El Paso. 

Inasmuch as all passenger trains are carefully inspected when departing 
from El Paso, about the only feasible plan to be adopted by smugglers is to 
place coolies in sealed freight cars, which are shifted, through the cooperation 
of railroad men, so that the inspectors are unable to inspect them before their 
departure from El Paso. During the fiscal year two freight cars loaded with 
Chinese have been detected—one load of 24 at Yuma, Ariz., and one load of 19 
at San Jose, Cal. It has been ascertained that the lot of 24 were placed in a 
Rock Island freight car near Fort Bliss, some 4 miles east of El Paso, and 
that the lot of 19 were placed in a freight car in New Mexico at a point some 7 
miles west of El Paso. Evidence has been secured justifying the arrest of 
four trainmen, and the said men are now under bond for their appearance 
before the grand jury. In both instances the ordinary lead seals were removed 
and the cars were resealed under through-manifest locks, not subject to inspec¬ 
tion by officers, by the railroad men who undertook to place the Chinamen in 
California. 

(An. Rep. Com. Gen., 1905, pp. 95-96.) 

SMUGGLING IN FREIGHT CARS. 

In May last the Bureau perfected arrangements with the Southern 
Pacific and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railways, under 
w^hich its officers are permitted to break seals on freight cars at cer¬ 
tain specified points, examining such cars for Chinese, and this sys¬ 
tem of inspection is working satisfactorily, so far as it can be applied 
to freight cars reaching the United States from points along the 
Mexican border. (Bu. Im. file No. 13948 C.) 

In May, 1905, the inspector in charge at El Paso made certain dis¬ 
coveries which led him to believe that some of the employees on the 
Southern Pacific road were engaged in a systematic plan for smug¬ 
gling Chinamen into the United States, by placing them on trains 
at El Paso. A thorough investigation was made, and four of the 
railroad men were arrested and subsequently indicted, the trial of 
their cases being set for the coming spring term of the court. The 
investigation seemed to show the connection of these men with the 
smuggling of the 24 Chinese who were captured in a Southern 
Pacific car at Yuma, Ariz., on March 21, 1905, and 19 in a Southern 
Pacific car captured at San Jose, Cal., on April 20, 1905. (Bu. Im. 
file No. 13937 C.) 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 15 

On July 28, 1905, the inspector in charge at El Paso reported the 
capture at White Spur, Tex., of 13 Chinese, found in a sealed freight, 
car. These men had been placed in a locked and sealed car, the end 
doors of which were left unfastened for ventilation, and were sup¬ 
plied with fod and drink sufficient to last them until they could reach 
some interior part of the country, but through some mistake or mis¬ 
carriage of the plans of those interested in handling the car, it was 
placed on a side track at White Spur and the iDresence of the China¬ 
men therein discovered. (Bu. Im. file No. 11648 C.) 

On January 31, 1906, it was learned that a carload of Chinamen 
had been released in Bakersfield, Cal., the Chinamen all escaping. 
An investigation of this case showed that the car had been engaged 
by one Seamons, a notorious smuggler of El Paso, for use in making 
a shipment of household furniture,” and that the Chinamen must 
have been brought across the river in the vicinity of El Paso and 
placed in the car while it was standing in the railway yards near the 
river, and through connivance on the part of some of the railway 
employees in connection with the sealing and locking of such car it 
was successfully hauled from El Paso to Bakersfield without the 
presence of the Chinamen therein being detected. (Bu. Im. file No. 
13948 C; see also Bu. Im. file Nos. 13108, 13291, and 13704 C.) 

ATLANTIC COAST PORTS AND PORTO RICO. 

The ports of Boston and New York City are comparatively unim¬ 
portant, so far as the admission of Chinese to this country is con¬ 
cerned, although a few alleged minor sons and alleged natives have 
arrived at the former port from Liverpool, England, during recent 
months, such applicants evidently having been brought to the said 
port with a view to testing the feasibility of making use of the Suez 
Canal route from China for the introduction of Chinese at the Atlan¬ 
tic seaports, as is evidenced by the fact that upon the appeals of the 
applicants being dismissed writs of habeas corpus were sued out in the 
district court and are still pending. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 14337, 14459, 
and 14460 C.) A number of vessels carrying Chinese crews enter all 
of the Atlantic ports, and considerable difficulty is experienced in 
preventing the escape of such seamen into the United States, espe¬ 
cially at the port of New York, and it is believed that many such 
escapes formerly occurred at the southern Atlantic ports, as it is 
only within the past three years that such ports have been manned 
with regular immigration officials. 

There is no record of any Chinaman ever having entered the ports 
of San Juan and Ponce, P. R., since the acquisition of the island. 
This may seem strange when it is known that so many Chinamen go 
to Cuba and the British West Indies, but the explanation is simple: 
Chinamen would have the same difficulty to enter Porto Rico as to 
enter the mainland, ‘whereas they can gain admission to the other 
West Indian islands without trouble, and, as pointed out in the chap¬ 
ter on transits (p. 79), can then work their way into the United 
States on tramp steamers or other vessels. 

GULF PORTS AND CUBA. 

Until the last two years a considerable number of Chinese were 
admitted at the ports of Tampa and New Orleans, especially the 
latter* But at present these ports are practically abandoned, except 


16 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

that a number of transits pass through New Orleans, en route to and 
from Habana and Hongkong. The falling off in the number of 
applications for admission is undoubtedly due to the fact that in the 
spring of 1904, the Bureau having received from the officers then 
recently stationed in Florida reliable information showing that the 
Florida and Georgia coasts were being invaded by Chinese from 
Cuba, and that possibly the inspectors stationed at New Orleans were 
being imposed upon by numbers of Chinamen entering that port as 
merchants from Cuba, Mexico, and Central America, detailed a spe¬ 
cial officer to investigate the conditions existing in Florida and at 
Habana and New Orleans. The result of such investigation was a 
confirmation of the reports theretofore received, and steps were imme¬ 
diately taken to break up the traffic in alleged merchants, and officers 
were so stationed in Florida as to place as close a Avatch on the smug¬ 
gling by means of tramp steamers as it was possible to maintain 
with the force available. This report also indicated that Jackson¬ 
ville, Fla., was used as a rendezvous for the Chinamen smuggled 
across from Mexico, and that from that point they were distributed 
northward to inland cities. (Bu. Im. file No. 11423 C.) 

EXPULSION. 

CONDITIONS IN THE INTERIOR. 

Having thus covered the land and water boundaries of the United 
States, the conditions existing in the interior of the country will be 
discussed. 

The Chinese inspectors stationed at interior points are charged with 
the performance of two classes of duties: (1) The investigation of 
claims made by Chinese applying at ports of entry for readmission 
to the United States as returning laborers or merchants, or for admis¬ 
sion as minor sons, wives, or natives, when the circumstances are 
such as to necessitate the examination of witnesses or records at the 
interior stations; and (2) the apprehension of Chinese unlawfully 
in this country, in order that they may be arrested upon judicial 
warrants and brought to trial. In the performance of the first class 
of duties only the usual disadvantages of investigating matters in 
which Chinese are concerned are encountered. 

In attempting to bring about the expulsion from this country of 
Chinese who have gained unlawful entrance thereto, the Chinese 
inspectors meet with opposition from two entirely different sources. 
In the cities which have a large Chinese population congregated in 
particular sections known as the “ Chinatown ” of the city, the oppo¬ 
sition is advanced by the Chinese themselves and by the conditions 
under which they live, the secrecy with which they surround them¬ 
selves, and the lengths to which a “ Moy,” a “ Lee,” a “ Kim,” a 
“ Wong ” (or some of the other various tribes) will go in order to 
protect his cousins or clansmen. In the smaller cities and towns the 
Chinamen often become well acquainted with the white residents, 
and in many instances connect themselves with the Sunday schools 
and churches, this latter circumstance being especially true of the 
Chinamen who possess no lawful papers shoAving their right to be and 
remain in the country, and immediately that one of these Chinamen 
is apprehended the most strenuous opposition is raised by the white 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 17 

citizens who know him, and every possible influence is brought to 
bear with a view to securing the discharge of the Chinaman by the 
court. 

ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS. 

The cases of arrested Chinamen are usually tried before United 
States commissioners, and it sometimes appears as though these offi¬ 
cials are susceptible to influences of the character just mentioned, and 
6ven the United States district courts have in some instances rendered 
decisions which, from an administrative point of view, seem unduly 
to favor the Chinese. Unfortunately, both the United States commis¬ 
sioners and the district courts in rendering such decisions make the 
impression upon the Chinese that their districts are “ safe places ” of 
residence for persons of that race, and Chinamen who gain unlawful 
admission start for these “ safe ” localities immediately that they 
cross the line. A number of such instances might be alluded to spe¬ 
cifically, if such a course were deemed proper or necessary. 

At about the time that the investigation of the Cuba-Florida-New 
Orleans matter was made a number of Chinamen were arrested in 
one of the States affected by such smuggling, and although the 
arrested persons were quite possibly Chinese who had been thus 
smuggled into the United States, the most of them experienced little 
difficulty in proving, to the satisfaction of the commissioners and 
judges, either that they had been born in this country or that they had 
been merchants during the registration period, and had since lost that 
status through misfortune in business transactions, illustrating the 
ease with which Chinese can obtain testimony of fellow-country¬ 
men to establish their allegations; and even in some instances the 
courts were imposed upon by the presentation of papers which the 
Bureau’s officers were thoroughly satisfied were fictitious and fraudu¬ 
lent. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 11012, 11330, 11638, 11423, and 12487 C; 
also (p. 62). 

COURTS DEMAND AFFIRMATIVE PROOF. 

Along the boundary between the United States and Mexico, also, 
the difficulties of enforcing the law are not alleviated in any degree 
by the requirements as to the production of affirmative proofs 
enforced by some of the commissioners and courts. Doubtless the 
commissioners and courts have reasons that they regard as sufficient 
for so doing, but this does not alter the fact mentioned. For instance, 
although the inspector in charge at El Paso keeps a complete list of all 
Chinese lawfully resident there, and is also fully informed as to the 
arrival of any Chinamen on a train from interior points, yet if he 
apprehends in El Paso or its vicinity a strange Chinaman, the Gov¬ 
ernment is required to prove affirmatively that such Chinaman has 
been out of the United States; often a difficult, if not impossible, 
proposition, under the phvsical conditions existing along the border. 

On January 25, 1906, the inspector in cliarge at El Paso reported 
that his records show that 250 Chinamen had entered El Paso (un¬ 
doubtedly from Juarez, Mexico, as they could not enter from United 
States points without being observed by the immigration officials), 
having in their possession certificates of residence, but not having 
complied with the provisions of law relating to the depaituie and 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-2 



18 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLTJSION LAWS. 


return of registered laborers, and who, therefore, under the decision 
of the courts, were amenable to arrest and deportation; but because 
of the requirement as to affirmative proof of absence from the United 
States, the best that could be done was to examine their certificates, 
and if such papers were found genuine to allow the holders to proceed 
to their destinations in the interior of the United States. (Bu.-Im. 
file Nos. 12391 and 14296 C.) 

In one of our largest southern cities, also, much discouragement of 
this character has been encountered, the United States commissioners 
apparently being inclined, whenever possible, to give the benefit of 
any doubt to the Chinese brought before them. (Bu. Im. file No. 
14^8.) 

‘‘ SAFE ” DISTRICTS FOR CHINESE. 

One of the large cities of the northern interior is regarded by the 
Chinamen as a particularly “ safe ” locality for those unlawfully in 
the United States, and that city and the small towns in its vicinity 
have a large population of the unlawful class. The Chinamen there 
openly boast of the friendship of the court and the commissioners for 
them, and the Bureau has felt that to make any number of arrests in 
that section would probably result in more harm than good in the 
aggregate; although it was engaged in a discreet inquiry into exist¬ 
ing conditions, with a view to devising some plan to destroy the 
“ safety ” of the locality at the time the agitation arose concerning 
the boycott, since which time practically no arrests have been made at 
interior points. (Bu. Im. file No. 13052 C.) 

During 1904, in conducting several investigations in a district of 
the “ Middle West,” a number of Chinamen of the unlawful class 
were found residing therein, and several arrests w^ere made; but the 
decision rendered by the district court in one of those cases in Sep¬ 
tember last has resulted in turning that district into a safe one for 
the Chinese also, for in the said case the court laid down such a 
broad ruling as to what constitutes a merchant that any Chinese 
laborer working in a laundry or a restaurant can remain in the dis¬ 
trict as a member of the mercantile class. An appeal has been taken 
from that decision, as it was rendered by a district court, not by a 
commissioner. (Bu. Im. file No. 12016 C.) 

In another district a very discouraging decision, from the adminis¬ 
trative point of view, was rendered in the fall of 1903, when one of 
the district courts held that if a Chinese inspector arrested a China¬ 
man the court would not order the deportation of the prisoner unless 
the Government proved affirmatively that “ the Chinaman was a 
Chinaman,” a proposition which was, of course, impossible. The 
consequence was that the Bureau was constrained to issue orders to its 
officers in the district to make no further arrests of Chinese there until 
the case could be heard on appeal. (Bu. Im. file No. 9690 C.) In 
another case the same court held that the Chinese exclusion laws were 
unconstitutional, and an appeal was taken from that decision also. 
When the appeals w^ere heard by the circuit court of appeals the said 
decisions were reversed (United States v. Hung Chang, 134 F. R., 19; 
United States v. Jock Coe et al, 196 U. S., 635; also United States v. 
Hum Wing, not yet reported; Bu. Im. file No. 13759 C). Certain 
influential persons, firms, and associations of the district mentioned 
have interested themselves in several of the cases alluded to, one of 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


19 


which is the Hum Wing case, a large sum of money having been sub¬ 
scribed by Chinese to carry the cases into the Supreme Court of the 
United States, the object being to obtain a decision holding that the 
Chinese exclusion laws are unconstitutional. (Bu. Im. file No. 
13759 C.) 

commissioners’ certificates of citizenship. 

Another serious phase of the situation is the fact that such a large 
number of Chinamen have been declared by United States commis¬ 
sioners, especially in the districts lying along the Canadian and Mexi¬ 
can borders, to be American citizens by birth, and have been furnished 
with what are known as “ commissioners’ certificates,” namely, a 
paper reciting the fact that a Chinaman of such and such a name was 
brought before them on a certain date and adjudged to be lawfully 
within the United States, and the fact that so many of these papers 
have been transferred from hand to hand, altered, forged, and even 
counterfeited, that it is impossible to determine in many instances 
whether the holder of such a paper is entitled thereto or not. 

The most numerous of these documents are what are known as 
“ McGettrick certificates.” Felix W. McGettrick was a United States 
commissioner at St. Albans, Vt., from March, 1894, to July, 1897. 
During that time, according to his own testimony in a case tried at 
Portland, Me., in March, 1905, he discharged about 1,100 Chinamen 
as citizens of the United States. Commissioner McGettrick did not 
keep a docket, but merely rough memoranda of these cases, and the 
rough memoranda cover only 820 of the 1,100 persons discharged. 
The Bureau of Immigration and the Chinese inspector in charge at 
Richford, Vt., compiled from the rough memoranda a description of 
the cases tried, which prepared “ docket ” is used for purposes of 
comparison. Commissioner McGettrick’s practice in issuing certifi¬ 
cates to discharged Chinamen was of such a careless nature that it is 
believed in many instances he granted two or more papers to one 
Chinaman; in fact, he has admitted himself that he sometimes 
furnished two. Besides this, his signature and seal have been 
forged, and it is impossible to estimate how many certificates are 
extant bearing such forged signature and seal. (Bu. Im. file No. 
13816 C.) Other commissioners’ signatures and seals have also been 
forged, and there are numerous such certificates, both genuine and 
forged, extant and held by Chinamen throughout the country. (Bu. 
Im. file No. 14582 C.) 

While in the case of United States v. Lew Poy Dew (119 F. R., 
786) the district court for the northern district of New York 
held that “ commissioners’ certificates ” could not properly ^ con¬ 
sidered evidence of a prior adjudication of the right of the Chinaman 
named therein to reside in the United States, and while that decision 
was confirmed bv the Supreme Court in the case of Ah How v. United 
States (193 U. S., 65) it is nevertheless true that, as a general rule, 
when a Chinaman, upon being arrested, presents such a certificate to 
the court (commissioner) his chances of being discharged are good. 

FRAUDULENT DOMICILED MERCHANTS’ CERTIFICATES. 

The above mentioned are not the only kinds of papers which are 
forged and counterfeited. Laborers’ certificates of residence readily 
lend themselves to these practices. (See chapter on laborers, p. 


20 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


71). Another class of papers which has furnished in the past 
an extensive field for fraud were what were known as ‘‘ domiciled 
merchants’ certificates.” When the enforcement of the exclusion 
laws at the ports of entry was vested in the collectors of customs the 
practice quite generally obtained of returning to an alleged domiciled 
merchant a copy of his affidavit and the accompanying affidavits of 
two white witnesses submitted by him to the collector, that officer 
indorsing across the said paper the fact and date of the Chinaman’s 
readmission as a domiciled merchant. These papers were transferred, 
sold, forged, and counterfeited to such an extent that when the Bu¬ 
reau of Immigration obtained control of the enforcement of the laws 
it issued orders that the officers in charge at ports of entry should 
not return any papers to domiciled merchants readmitted by them. 
As recently as Februar}^ 24, 1906, a case of this character was brought 
to the attention of the Bureau. A Chinaman ari’ested in Arizona 
presented a “ domiciled merchant’s certificate,” bearing an indorse¬ 
ment purporting to be signed by a former collector at Port Townsend, 
showing him readmitted through that port on March 3, 1897, as a 
member of a firm in Missoula, Mont. An investigation at Missoula 
showed that the paper was fictitious throughout, there never having 
been a firm of the name given in that place, and no such parties as 
the two white witnesses who signed, of the notary who attested the 
affidavits under seal ever having been located there. (Bu. Im. file 
No. 11020 C.) 

SUBSTITUTION IN DEPORTATION. 

In September, 1903, the immigration officials at San Francisco dis¬ 
covered the existence of a plot by certain Chinese persons and a 
deputy United States marshal by which Chinese who had been ar¬ 
rested and ordered dejiorted were substituted with other Chinamen 
who desired to make visits or to return permanently to their native 
country. The marshal and his confederates were arrested, and the 
former committed suicide. This discovery led to the adoption of 
very carefully prepared plans to prevent a repetition of the practice, 
in which plans the various United States marshals and the immigra¬ 
tion officials cooperated. (See Bu. Im. file Nos. 9180, 9342, and 
9518 C, and Rules 54 and 57 of Department Regulations approved 
May 3, 1905.) 

PRESENT PLANS FOR ENFORCING LAAVS. 

A^dien the Commissioner-General of Immigration obtained com¬ 
plete control of the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws in the 
mainland of the United States, by means of the act of February 14, 
1903 (32 Stat., p. 825), establishing the Dejiartment of Commerce 
and Labor, transferring the Bureau of Immigration to that Depart¬ 
ment from the Treasury Department, aiid authorizing the Commis¬ 
sioner-General to designate, Avith the approval of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, officers of the Immigration Service to super¬ 
sede the collectors of customs and the collectors of internal revenue 
in the enforcement of the laws, the United States Avas divided up into 
districts and competent officers of experience and tried capacity Avere 
. placed in charge of such districts. The machinery was thus set in 
, motion to bring about a thoroughly efficient enforcement of the pro- 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


21 


visions of law relating; to the exclusion from this country of Chinese 
laborers and the expulsion therefrom of those who had gained unlaw¬ 
ful entry, the latter being as necessary to carrying out the expressed 
will of Congress as the former. During the first fiscal year after this 
arrangement was perfected very satisfactory progress was made by 
the officers in charge in the way of locating both the lawful and un¬ 
lawful Chinese residents within their districts and in perfecting the 
records of their offices in such a way as to make it possible to investi¬ 
gate the cases of applicants for admission as returning merchants 
and laborers promptly and effectively, and while engaged in this 
work they also made, incidentally, a number of arrests of Chinese 
found in their districts engaged as laborers, and 3 ’et not having in 
their possession the certificates required by law. (An. Rep. Com. 
Gen., 1904, p. 149.) 

OPINION or COIMMISSIONER-GENERAL. 

In closing the chapter the following quotation from the annual 
report of the Commissioner-General for the fiscal year 1905 seems 
appropriate (pp. 78-79) : 

In no branch of its widespread activities does the Bureau believe that it has 
so thoroughly succeeded in carrying into effective operation the purpose of 
the laws committed to its charge as in the exclusion of Chinese of the classes 
which it is the professed desire of both this Government and the Empire of 
China to keep out of the United States. As i)ointed out in former reports, there 
are many serious obstacles, both in the circumstances to be dealt with by 
administrative officers and in the opposition of many citizens of this country 
to the policy of selecting the Chinese alone as subjects for exclusion, that exact 
of the Bureau a degree of vigilance and resourcefulness unexampled, it is 
believed, in the administration of any other legislation on the statute books. 
Representatives of the large missionary interests do not hesitate to express 
openly their disapiH'oval of the law or to denounce those whose duty it is to 
administer the law. The commercial interests of the country, while more 
prudent and self-restrained in their utterances on the subject, are equally 
opposed both to the policy and to the means necessarily used to make that 
policy effective. A large and somewhat vociferous element sympathizes with 
the foregoing classes. This element is composed in part of those who can not 
see any greater risk at stake than the probable reduction of the price of labor 
in this country, of those who are persuaded that Chinese would engage in 
agricultural labor in the Southern States and constitute a more reliable system 
than that now available there, and of those who hold the illogical opinion 
that because alleged undesirable aliens of other races are being allowed to 
enter the United States this country is compelled by some fancied rule of con¬ 
sistency or propriety to admit other undesirable aliens of the Chinese race. 

Of course it is not questioned that all of these persons are entitled to enter¬ 
tain such views, or any views, but the only proper means of giving them expres¬ 
sion in law is by a resort to Congress. The course pursued, however, is denun¬ 
ciation of the officers who enforce the law and misrepresentation of their acts, 
either made in willful disregard of the truth or in ignorance, and published 
abroad either through the public press or by any other means which promises to 
secure such frequent repetition as may serve to invest falsehood with a sem¬ 
blance of truth. 

(See, also, Senate Report No. 776 (part 2), Fifty-seventh Con¬ 
gress, first session, pp. 85-90. 137-145, 281-283, 285-303, 313-314, and 
442-444.) 


22 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS 


Numder of Chinese persons, 'by classes, applying for admission to the United 
States, admitted, and rejected, monthly, from February, to January, 

1906; also number passing through United States in transit. 


Month. 

Admitted. 

Rejected. 

Total applica¬ 

tions. 

Transits. 

Natives. 

Laborers. 

Merchants. 

Wives. 

Minors. 

Section 6. 

Total. 

Natives. 

Laborers. 

;-1 

Merchants. 

Wives. 

IMinors. 

CD 

.2 

a 

C/J 

Total. 

1904. 

















February . 

12 

63 

31 

6 

9 

32 

143 

3 

3 

9 

• • • • 

5 

2 

22 

165 

15 

March. 

20 

40 

16 

1 

5 

40 

122 

10 

1 

11 

• « • • 

2 

5 

29 

151 

19 

April. 

18 

72 

39 

1 

11 

67 

208 

5 

2 

2 

• • a • 

1 

• • • • 

10 

218 

52 

May. 

51 

66 

57 

2 

7 

80 

263 

34 

8 

7 

1 

2 

3 

55 

318 

63 

June. 

86 

100 

67 

3 

10 

31 

297 

216 

9 

5 

... - 

1 

3 

234 

531 

106 

July. 

71 

84 

71 

6 

11 

78 

321 

5 

12 

6 

1 

3 

18 

45 

366 

61 

August. 

96 

110 

69 

3 

23 

299 

600 

5 

9 

9 

« • • * 

2 

31 

56 

656 

94 

September. 

46 

58 

24 

1 

8 

43 

180 

2 

2 

6 

• • • • 

1 

79 

90 

270 

72 

October. 

21 

70 

33 

1 

8 

65 

188 

8 

5 

2 


3 

28 

46 

244 

73 

November. 

60 

101 

63 

6 

8 

48 

286 

7 

18 

15 

2 

4 

69 

115 

401 

112 

December. 

52 

45 

37 

5 

7 

16 

162 

4 

2 

4 

1 

1 

9 

21 

183 

42 

1905. 

















January. 

27 

24 

22 

3 

8 

11 

95 

10 

3 

3 

.... 

1 

9 

26 

121 

19 

February . 

27 

24 

36 

2 

9 

24 

122 

5 

2 

7 

.... 

2 

7 

23 

145 

34 

March. 

22 

5 

18 

• • • • 

7 

9 

61 

5 

1 

4 


3 

4 

17 

78 

27 

April. 

29 

17 

26 

1 

2 

11 

86 

2 

3 

6 

i 

1 

1 

14 

100 

68 

May. 

60 

35 

53 

3 

14 

18 

183 

12 


6 




17 

200 

67 

Jurie. 

123 

50 

96 

5 

18 

19 

311 

5 


3 


1 

2 

11 

322 

95 

July. 

98 

51 

61 

2 

20 

21 

253 



5 


3 

1 

9 

262 

36 

August. 

79 

64 

66 

7 

19 

31 

256 

3 


2 




5 

%1 

63 

September. 

104 

74 

64 

4 

13 

24 

283 

2 

3 

4 


1 

1 

li. 

294 

41 

October. 

103 

71 

56 

5 

37 

21 

293 

4 

3 

5 


1 

3 

16 

309 

73 

November. 

106 

61 

73 

5 

28 

12 

285 

9 

3 

3 


1 

2 

18 

303 

77 

December. 

85 

34 

68 

■ 7 

39 

12 

245 

6 

4 

8 

.... 

2 

3 

23 

268 

64 

1906. 

















January. 

53 

13 

63 

2 

30 

70 

221 

6 

2 

4 

. . • - 

2 

•••• 

14 

235 

26 

Total. 

1,449 

1,312 

1,199 

81 

351 

1,082 

5,474 

368 

95 

135 

6 

43 

280 

927 

6,401 

1,389 


a Prior to February, 1904, the statistics were not so minutely seggregated. 











































































CHAPTER IIL 
REGULATIONS. 


Origin of. Natural evolution by experience and change of conditions. 
The various pamphlets issued containing. Quotation of rules criticised; 
explanation of necessity for; manner in which approved and sustained 
by courts, including Supreme Court. General criticism answered by 
Bureau. 

When the division of special agents of the Office of the Secretary 
of the Treasury surrendered to the Bureau of Immigration the juris¬ 
diction theretofore vested in it with regard to the enforcement of the 
Chinese-exclusion laws, the rules of practice followed by adminis¬ 
trative officers in the enforcement of such laws were incorporated in 
a Treasury Department pamphlet entitled “ Digest of the Chinese- 
Exclusion Laws and Decisions, 1899.” This was a compilation of the 
treaty and existing laws, supplemented by brief extracts from the 
leading Department and court decisions with regard to the applica¬ 
tion of the laws to Chinese resident in this country and to those seek¬ 
ing admission thereto. This publication, compiled by Mr. Chapman 
W. Maupin, of the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, formed the 
nucleus for subsequent regulations issued by the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment and by the Department of Commerce and Labor. The first 
pamphlet issued at the instance of the Bureau of Immigration was 
that entitled “ Laws, Treaty, and Begulations Relating to the Exclu¬ 
sion of Chinese, 1902.” This pamphlet also contains a compilation of 
the treaty and laws, to which was added, under the heading “ Regula¬ 
tions,” arranged under certain natural classifications, the principles 
laid down in the Department and court decisions contained in the 
first-mentioned publication. It will thus be seen that up to this time, 
namely, 1902, the regulations amounted to a mere codification of the 
law as interpreted by the judicial tribunals and by the regularly 
authorized administrative officers of the Government. 

UNIFORM RULES UNDER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

When the Bureau of Immigration became a part of the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor, July 1, 1903, it was possible to assume 
complete control over a situation the authority for coping with which 
had theretofore been divided among several classes of Government 
officers. It also became possible to issue definite and detailed instruc¬ 
tions intended to meet every possible contingency, and to lay down, 
so far as possible, an exact rule of procedure for the chief adminis¬ 
trative officers throughout the country and their subordinates and 
for the officers charged with the enforcement of the law at ports of 
entry. 


23 


24 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

Taking the digest and the second pamphlet above mentioned as a 
basis and supplementing them with the combined results of the prac¬ 
tical experience which had been gained by two years’ work in en¬ 
forcing the laws, it was possible to issue, within one month after the 
establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor, a revised 
pamphlet entitled “ Laws, treaty, and regulations relating to the ex¬ 
clusion of Chinese, July, 1903.” In this publication the attempt was 
made for the first time to formulate in regularly numbered rules the 
results of the administrative and judicial decisions and of the expe¬ 
rience of administrative officers. A second edition of this pamphlet 
was issued in December, 1903, no changes of importance being made 
therein. 

The convention with China of 1894 expiring by China’s denuncia¬ 
tion thereof in December, 1904, it became necessary to make some 
changes in the regulations to meet the effect which this expiration 
had upon the existing laws relating to the exclusion of Chinese per¬ 
sons. Therefore, in May, 1905, a revised pamphlet was issued, en¬ 
titled “ Treaty, laws, and regulations relating to the exclusion of 
Chinese.” In this was inserted, in view of the expiration of the con¬ 
vention of 1894, the permanent treaty with China of 1880, and the 
regulations were modified in such respects as were rendered necessary 
by the expiration of the convention, but not in such a way as to make 
any radical changes, as there were but few particulars in which the 
laws enacted prior to 1894 were modified b}^ the convention of that 
year. One rule contemplating an entirely neAv departure, known as 
rule 59, was incorporated in the said new regulations, and in repub¬ 
lishing former rules they were rearranged and renumbered so as to 
appear in more complete and exact sequence than had been the case 
with former publications. Lule 59 will be alluded to at a later stage 
of this paper. 

RULES NOW IN FORCE. 

Finally, in accordance with a report of a committee appointed by 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to consider the existing regu¬ 
lations, another pamphlet was issued, superseding all prior publica¬ 
tions, entitled “ Treaty, laws, and regulations governing the admis¬ 
sion of Chinese; regulations approved February 5, 1906.” From 
these revised regulations ten of the former rules have been omitted, 
some of them being merely declaratory of the law, and three new 
rules have been added thereto. Those new rules are: Eule 26, pro¬ 
viding the conditions under Avhich merchants domiciled in this coun¬ 
try may make short visits to foreign contiguous territory without the 
delay rendered necessary by rule 25 in the cases of domiciled mer¬ 
chants making visits to other continents; rule 37, making provision 
for the tmnsit through the United States of members of the exempt 
classes without requiring them to be photographed or measured; and 
rule 52, repealing all former regulations inconsistent with the new 
compilation. In the subsequent part of this chapter, which treats 
of the opposition and criticism which have arisen with regard to De¬ 
partment regulations, reference will be made not to the last-men¬ 
tioned pamphlet, but to that of May, 1905, as the new pamphlet does 
not contain all of the criticised regulations, and some of those re¬ 
tained therein have been modified either in form or effect. 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


25 


CRITICISM OF REGULATIONS. 

The regulations have always been subject to criticism and attack 
by parties interested in the admission of Chinese to this country, and 
these attacks and criticisms have been quite general in character 
and widespread as to their source during recent months. Those 
which have constituted the principal grounds for contention will now 
be taken up and discussed. 

DEFINING EXEMPT CLASSES. 

Rule 1. Under the provisions of the treaty and laws in relation to the exclu¬ 
sion of Chinese persons only such persons as are rej>:istered Chinese laborers, 
officials of the Chinese Government, teachers, students, travelers for curiosity 
or pleasure, merchants and their lawful wives and minor children, seamen as 
pc’ovided in rule 38, laborers seeking in good faith to pass through the country 
to foreign territory as provided in rule 39, and persons whose physical condition 
necessitates immediate hospital treatment shall be permitted to land at any 
port of the United States. 

This regulation has been the subject of violent attacks from various 
quarters, the line of argument against it usually adopted being that 
there was no intention on the part of the Chinese and American Gov¬ 
ernments, respectively, to exclude from this country any classes of 
Chinese other than coolies, or laborers in the ordinary popular sense 
of that term. The regulation, however, is based upon the plain in¬ 
tent of the various acts of Congress, as indicated by the bodies of 
such acts, and in several’ instances by the titles even, to exclude all 
Chinese persons except those specifically exempted from the exclud¬ 
ing provisions, and upon the words used in the treaty of 1880, “Art¬ 
icle II. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as 
teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their 
body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in 
the "United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free 
will and accord,” etc., and upon the evident intent of the commission¬ 
ers for the respective governments at the time the treaty was nego¬ 
tiated.- It is shown by Foreign Kelations (1881, p. ITT) that the 
first proposition made by the American commissioner contained the 
following: 

And the words “ Chinese Laborers ” are herein used to signify all immigra¬ 
tion other than that for teaching, trade, travel, study, and curiosity hereinbe¬ 
fore referred to and authorized and provided for in existing treaties. 

To this the Chinese Government objected upon the ground that 
“ the separation of this class from the mass of the subjects of China 
*in this manner is not in strict accord with the spirit of our treaties, 
and in practical operation would meet with many difficulties. But, 
bearing in mind the deep friendship between the two governments, 
in the event of embarrassments on either side the solution must be 
sought in a spirit of mutual concession.” (Id., p. 1T8.) 

A little later the Chinese commissioners proposed to add the word 
“ artisans ” to the exempt classes already enumerated in the proposal 
from the commissioners on behalf of this country, being the same as 
those now exempt under the law, but Mr. Trescott, one of the three 
commissioners, declared that such an addition to the exempt classes 
was an inadmissible limitation upon that definition of Chinese laborer 
which had been suggested by the United States commissioners. (Id., 

p. 186 .) 


26 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

Again, at a later date, the commissioners on behalf of the United 
States submitted a proposition declaring: 

And the words “ Chinese laborers ” are herein used to signify all immigra¬ 
tion other than for teaching, trade, travel, study, and curiosity. (Id., p. 187.) 

Accompanying this proposal was a memorandum declaring that— 

The United States commissioners feel it their duty to insist upon their 
definition of “ Chinese laborers,” viz: “ The words ‘ Chinese laborers ’ are herein 
used to signify all immigration other than that for teaching, trade, travel, 
study, and curiosity hereinbefore referred to and provided for in existing 
treaty.” They can not consent that artisans shall be excluded from the class 
of Chinese laborers, for it is this very competition of skilled labor in the cities, 
where Chinese labor immigration concentrates, which has caused the embarrass¬ 
ment and public discontent they wish to avoid. (Id., p. 188.) 

MEANING OF TERM “ LABORER.” 

Here is shown the attitude of the commissioners representing this 
country, a position from which they never receded, and one which 
does not show that their purpose was simply to exclude coolies, whom, 
apparently, they did not even mention. 

Upon the conclusion of the treaty the commissioners on behalf of 
this Government made a report to the then Secretary of State with 
a view to informing this country of the interpretation placed on the 
words ‘‘ Chinese laborers,” not only by them, but by the commis¬ 
sioners representing China, who had persistently declined to 'define 
the words in exact terms, apparently showing no more ground for 
the belief that, in the discussions, the words were understood to 
apply to coolies only than was shown by the expressions of the 
American commissioners. This report, after reciting the futile 
attempts to induce the Chinese negotiators to define Chinese laborers 
in terms, reported that— 

The Chinese Government was very unwilling to be more precise than the 
absolute necessity called for, and they claimed that in Article II they did by 
exclusion provide that nobody should be entitled to claim the benefit of the 
general provisions of the Burlingame treaty but those who weht to the United 
States for purposes of teaching, study, mercantile transactions, travel, or 
curiosity. ♦ ♦ ♦ There is not in the treaty any language which modifies 

this concession, and there was not, as we think, the slightest intention on the 
part of the Chinese commissioners to diminish the full force of the discretion 
given to the United States. (Id., p. 189.) 

Again in the treaty of 1894 the recital of the exempt classes is 
identical with that contained in the treaty of 1880; and it seems in¬ 
credible to believe that the representatives on behalf of either of the 
Governments interested intended to exclude only coolies or manual 
laborers, but it is quite plain that their intent in this respect was 
the same as that so plainly expressed by the legislative branch of 
this Government in the several acts of Congress bearing upon the 
subject. Rule 1 was based upon an opinion of the Attorney-General 
rendered in 1898 (Op. Att. Gen., vol. 22, p. 132) ; but long anterior 
to suck date the courts had expressed similar views. Thus, in 1893, 
the district court for the southern district of California declared that 
Article II of the treaty, by exclusion, provides that no Chinese shall 
be entitled to admission to the United States except those whose in¬ 
tention it is to teach^ study, engage in mercantile transactions, or 
travel for curiosity or pleasure (57 F. R., 591). It has not been 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 27 

the pmctice of administrative officers to apply this rule with such 
technical strictness as to render it more narrow than its terms would 
justify. For instance, on May 2, 1904, in a decision known as No. 
21, the Department ordered the admission at the port of San Fran¬ 
cisco of one Tang Chung Pang, whose principal occupation had 
been that of a newspaper editor, but who had engaged in the voca¬ 
tion of a teacher to a sufficient extent to make it possible to hold that 
he came within the intent of the definition. And the Department 
has also held that bankers should, within the meaning and intent of 
the treaty, be included among merchants. (See Bu. Im. file No. 
13480 C.) This rule is retained in the recently issued publication, 
with a slight immaterial change. 

EXAMINATION, HEARING, AND APPEAL. 

Rule 6 .—The examination prescribed in rule 5 should be separate and apart 
from the public, in the presence of Government officials and such witness or 
witnesses only as the examining officer shall designate, and if, upon the con¬ 
clusion thereof, the Chinese applicant for admission is adjudged to be inad¬ 
missible, he should be advised of his right of appeal and his counsel should 
be permitted, after duly filing notice of appeal, to examine, but not make copies 
of, the evidence upon which the excluding decision is based. 

In their criticisms of this regulation the critics always ignore the 
fact that all aliens of whatever race applying for admission to the 
United States are examined “ separate and apart from the public, in 
the presence of Government officials and such witness or witnesses 
only as the examining officer shall designate.” The intent of the rule 
is too obvious to require explanation. Experience has demonstrated 
that it is not safe to allow Chinese applicants for admission to be 
interviewed by their attorneys and friends prior to or at the examina¬ 
tion of such persons. Even with the regulation in force it is a diffi¬ 
cult matter to prevent coaching, as is shown in another part of this 
paper by the various illustrations of coaching methods resorted to. 
(See Chapter II, p. 7.) 

The view that the regulation is necessary and reasonable was af¬ 
firmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which declared, 
in answer to objections raised thereto, in conjunction with others 
intended to prevent violations of law through the coaching of Chi¬ 
nese awaiting a hearing, “ the whole scheme is intended to give as 
fair a chance to prove a right to enter the country as the necessarily 
summary character of the proceedings will permit.” (194 U. S., 
170.) The clause of the rule, “in the presence of Government 
officials and such witness or witnesses only as the examining officer 
shall designate,” it has even been claimed is intended to prevent the 
examination of any other witnesses than such as the examining 
official may care to hear—a construction which is not justified by the 
text, and is wholly without foundation in fact, as it is always the 
practice to examine every witness appearing to give testimony. That 
part of it requiring that the attorneys for Chinee should not make 
copies of the testimony was the result of a discovery that many 
copies so made in the past had been widely circulated in the China¬ 
towns of San Francisco and other places as samples of questions 
asked in such examinations, the objects of the persons so circulating 
them being to coach Chinese and to sell to those not lawfully entitled 


28 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


to admission copies of the questions, with instructions as to how they 
should be answered. In the recently issued pamphlet the rule has 
been modified in such a way as to remove any possibility as to mis¬ 
construction being placed u])on the above-quoted term, and by insert¬ 
ing a provision under which attorneys will hereafter be allowed not 
only to examine, but to make copies of the testimony, and also to 
provide for the examination of the record by a Chinese consular 
officer, if one is located at the port. 

BURDEN OF PROOF ON APPLICANT. 

Rule 7.—The burden of proof in all cases rests upon Chinese persons claim¬ 
ing the right of admission to, or residence within, the United States, to estab¬ 
lish such right affirmatively and satisfactorily to the appropriate Government 
officers, and in no case in which the law prescribes the nature of the evidence 
to establish such right shall other evidence he accepted in lieu thereof, and in 
every douhtful case the benefit of the doubt shall be given by administrative 
officers to the United States Government. 

This rule has been characterized as extremely harsh, and as unwar¬ 
ranted. It is merely a clear enunciation of the provisions of law, and 
was adopted for the purpose of placing before administrative officers 
a clear and succinct rule for their guidance. Being merely declara¬ 
tory, however, it has been omitted from the revised regulations. 

OFFICIALS RETAIN CERTIFICATES. 

RnJe 12 .—All certificates or other evidence offered by Chinese persons to 
establish their right of admission to the United States, other than laborers’ 
registration certificates, shall be retained by the officers in charge of the admin¬ 
istration of the Chinese-exclusion laws at ports of entry, the immunity from 
arrest of the Chinese persons admitted thereon resting upon their exclusive 
occupation in the pursuits for which their certificates or other evidence claim 
that they respectively seek admission to the United States. (See Rule 59.) 

The allegation has been made that, inasmuch as section 6 of the act 
approved July 5, 1884, provides that the certificate described therein 
“ shall be prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein and shall 
be produced to the collector of customs of the port of the district in 
the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive and 
afterwards produced to the proper authorities of the United States 
whenever lawfully demanded,” the intention was that the certificate 
should be carried on the person of the Chinaman landed under its 
provisions. The defense of the rule consists in the fact that there is 
no necessity for a Chinaman admitted to this country as a member of 
the exempt class carrying any documentary evidence on his person, 
his protection consisting in his engagement in the pursuit for which 
he was admitted; that if any question did ever arise with regard to 
such a Chinese person the certificate could be just as conveniently 
and much more certainly produced from the custody of the officer at 
the port of entry than by the original holder; and that experience 
had shown that in many instances after a Chinese person of the 
alleged exempt classes had been admitted on such a paper the paper 
was remailed to China or to foreign contiguous territory and by re¬ 
moving therefrom the original photograph and attaching another in 
lieu thereof could be used again and again for the purpose of defeat¬ 
ing the law. 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 29 

In the last issue of the regulations, however, it has been provided 
that these certificates shall be returned to the persons admitted 
thereupon. In this connection rule 59 of the regulations should also 
be mentioned; but, as it is very long, has not been actually put into 
operation and has been omitted from the last publication, it will not 
be quoted. Its object was to provide a durable certificate of identifi¬ 
cation, of a convenient size for carrying on the person, so arranged 
and prepared as to reduce to a minimum the opportunities for alter¬ 
ing or forging it, which certificate was to be presented to every mem¬ 
ber of the exempt classes admitted at ports of this country on section 
C, certificates taken from them at the time of such admission. This 
plan, while not incorporated in the last regulations, has not been 
abandoned, but will be further considered if it is found that, under 
the method of returning the section 6 certificates, the abuses indulged 
in prior to the adoption of rule 12 are again resorted to. 

CONDITIONS OF APPEAL. 

Rule 13 .—Every Chinese person refused admission under the provisions of 
the exclusion laws by the decision of the officer in charge at the port of entry 
must, if he shall elect to take an appeal to the Secretary, give written notice 
thereof to said officer within two days after such decision is rendered. 

Rule 14 .—Notice of appeal provided for in rule 13 shall act as a stay upon 
the disposal of the Chinese person whose case is thereby affected until a final 
decision is rendered by the Secretary; and, within three days after the filing 
of such notice, unless further delay is required to investigate and report upon 
new evidence, the complete record of the case, together with such briefs, affi¬ 
davits, and statements as are to he considered in connection therewith, shall be 
forwarded to the Commissioner-General of Immigration by the officer in charge 
at the port of arrival, accompanied by his views thereon in writing; but on 
such appeal no evidence will be considered that has not been made the subject 
of investigation and report by the said officer in charge. 

These regulations have been attacked in two respects: First, as to 
the short period of time allowed for the taking of an appeal, and, 
second, as to the requirement that no evidence wdll be considered on 
an appeal which has not been passed upon by the officer at the port 
of entry, from whose decision such appeal is taken. The require¬ 
ment that appeals should be taken and completed within short periods 
of time was brought about by the receipt of various complaints to 
the effect that Chinese were held in detention at ports of entry too 
long before being either landed or deported; but this requirement was 
modified in a subsequent regulation, rule 15, which provided that ad¬ 
ditional time for the perfecting of the appeal might be granted by 
an inspector in charge at a port, if that officer was satisfied that the 
ends of justice could not be met without granting such additional 
period, and the practice in this respect has been extmnely liberal. 
In the new regulations the time primarily allowed within which to 
perfect an appeal has been increased to live days, and the granting 
of additional time in deserving cases is still permitted. 

That the immigration officers at ports of entry accord Chinese 
applicants every reasonable ojiportunity to establish their right to 
enter this country can be substantiated by the submission of hundreds 
of appeal records; in fact, it can be asserted, without any risk what¬ 
ever of refutation, that the proceedings in the cases of Chinese appli¬ 
cant are much more extended and much less suimnary in character 


30 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

than the consideration of the cases of applicants of any other na¬ 
tionality. No restriction is placed upon Chinese as to the employ¬ 
ment of counsel, and they are able to, and often do, engage legal 
talent of a high class. With other aliens, the fee which an attorney 
ma}^ charge is limited to $10, so that, though they frequently engage 
counsel, it is not often that more than one lawyer will represent such 
a person, and that lawyer is usually not a counselor of the highest 
legal ability. Large sums of money are spent by the Chinese and 
the persons interested in landing them in this country in retaining 
attorneys, both at the ports and in Washington before the Depart¬ 
ment, and especially at the latter point are men of more than average 
ability employed. In fact, as is pointed out at another part of this 
paper (see p. 8), there sems to be no limit to the funds available for 
landing Chinese in the United States. 

As illustrating the liberality with which the appeals are regarded 
at the Department, the following two tables, take from the annual 
reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for the fiscal 
vears 1904 and 1905, are inserted: 

DISPOSITION OF APPEALS, 1904. 


Port. 

Sus¬ 

tained. 

Dis¬ 

missed. 

Total cases 
appealed. 

San Francisco, Cal...... 

63 

104 

167 

Port Townsend, Wasli____ 

10 

24 

34 

Portland, ()reg___ 

1 

1 

New York, N. Y..... 


2 

2 

Richford, Vt___ 

3 

3 

6 

Malone, N. Y. 

17 

40 

57 

Portal, N. Dak....... 

8 

6 

14 

Sunjas, Wash.. 

1 

1 




Total..... 

101 

181 

282 



DISPOSITION OF APPEALS, 1905, 


San Francisco, Cal.... 

97 

300 

397 

Port Townsend, Wash...... 

7 

7 

14 

Honolulu, Hawaii. 

2 

2 

4 

Sumas, Wash_____ 

3 

8 

11 

2 

Portal, N. Dak...... 


2 

Malone, N. Y... 

4 

6 

10 



Total..... 

113 

325 

438 



From the first table it will be noted that the ratio of appeals sus¬ 
tained is about 36 per cent, and in the year 1905 the ratio was about 
25 per cent. 

The appeals upon reaching the Department are not handled in a 
manner the least perfunctory or formal in character. On the con¬ 
trary, they receive the consideration, not only of officers trained and 
experienced in the Chinese-exclusion laws and in the weighing of evi¬ 
dence, but the personal attention of the head of the Department, 
every material detail being considered and discussed. Moreover, if 
there is the least doubt that every possible opportunity has been 
afforded applicants to establish their claims, the Department has not 
hesitated to return the cases for further investigation, or to accept 
additional evidence, the only stipulation enforced being that any 
such additional evidence submitted in the form of affidavits shall be 
investigated before being accorded a place in the record. 




































ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


31 


BERTILLON RECORD. 

Rule 23 .—It shall be the duty of the officer in charge at the port of entry to 
register and make a Bertillon record of all Chinese laborers arriving at or 
departing from said port, which record shall show the individual, family, and 
tribal name, age, occupation, when and where followed, last place of residence, 
physical peculiarities, and such other pertinent information as may assist in 
the identification or investigation of such person in case of his returning to the 
United States. A duplicate of the record of such registry shall be transmitted 
to the Commissioner-General of Immigration for each such vessel or railway 
train. 

This rule was based upon a provision contained in the act of March 
3, 1903, making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appro¬ 
priations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903 (32 Stat. L., pt. 1, 
p. 1112),reading: 

Provided, That so much of the amount hereby appropriated as may be neces¬ 
sary shall be available for the establishment and maintenance of the Bertillon 
system of identification at the various ports of entry ; but this proviso shall 
not apply to persons embraced in Article III of the treaty with China of 1894. 

Frauds had become so constant and extensive in connection with 
the landing of Chinese laborers in this country, especially by substi¬ 
tuting for laborers who had been registered in this country, and after 
departing on a visit to their native land had either died or determined 
to remain permanently abroad, other Chinese of similar appearance 
who had never been in the United States, that in his annual report 
for 1902 the Commissioner-General incorporated the following rec¬ 
ommendation : 

In closing this report I desire to express my conviction of the importance to 
an efficient administration of the laws, particularly those in relation to the ex¬ 
clusion of Chinese, of adopting the best available method of securing such a 
physical record of every alien found to be inadmissible to the United States as 
will enable administrative officers to identify such alien should he seek access 
thereto after rejection. Such a record, it is believed, can be secured by the 
adoption of what is known as the “ Bertillon system ” of identification, and I 
accordingly urge that appropriate steps be taken to secure the use of that sys¬ 
tem at the earliest practicable date. 

The system has been in use since the passage of the act above men¬ 
tioned, and affords an absolutely accurate system of identification, 
under which it is impossible to perpetrate frauds by substituting one 
Chinese person for another. The most serious and far-reaching criti¬ 
cisms have been indulged in concerning this rule, devised to put into 
effective operation a method of identification the application of 
which to the cases of Chinese other than the members of the exempt 
classes mentioned in Article HI of the treaty of 1894, or in Article II 
of the treaty of 1880, met with the approval of Congress. It has 
even been claimed that Chinese of the exempt classes, sometimes ladies 
of hi^’h degree, have been compelled to strip for examination. I hese 
assertions widely circulated in the press of this country and China, 
are absolutely false. No Chinese person applying for admission to 
this country as a member of the exempt classes has ever been required 
to submit to the Bertillon system of identification. Even in applying 
the system to laborers it is not necessary to strip them or to submit 

them to any other indignity. 


32 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


METHOD OF TAKING MEASUREMENTS. 

The measurements required under the Bertillon system as applied 
to Chinese laborers are taken with three instruments: (1) A large 
pair of straight calipers, for taking forearm and foot measurement, 
being a similar instrument to that used in all shoe stores for measur¬ 
ing the feet of customers; (2) a small pair of straight calipers, simi¬ 
lar to the above, used for measuring fingers and ears; and (3) a pair 
of curved calipers, used for taking the measurements (diameter) of 
the head. The height of laborers, measured for purposes of identifi¬ 
cation, is taken by means of an ordinary mural board, with a sliding- 
pointer, similar to the device noAV used by medical examiners in life 
insurance offices. A stool of fixed height on which the subject sits 
against the mural board while his truni?: measure is indicated by 
drawing the sliding pointer down close to the top of his head; a 
stand on which the subject rests his arm while the forearm measure 
is taken with the large caliiiers, and a stool of proper size, on which 
he rests his foot while it is being measured with the large calipers, 
complete the equipment. From the last revision this rule has been 
dropped, and the former system of identifying by means of photo¬ 
graphs and taking a note of the height and general personal descrip¬ 
tion of Chinese laborers will in future be observed. 

TERM “ MERCHANT ” DEFINED. 

Rule 29 .—In the enforcement of the. provisions of section 2 of the act of 
November 3, 1893, relating to the application for admission of alleged return¬ 
ing Chinese merchants, it will not be enough to have witnesses testifj^ that an 
applicant, for at least one year before his departure from the United States, 
was not engaged in the performance of any manual labor except such as was 
necessary in the conduct of his business as such merchant, but the testimony 
should show specifically the kind of work the Chinaman has done during the 
entire year, and, after detailing the character of such work, should say that 
he has not performed any other labor than that specifically set forth. (S. 21039.) 

This provision has been at various times designated as requiring 
evidence of an unreasonable character. It was, however, the result of 
a long line of practical experience with the so-called mercantile es¬ 
tablishments conducted by Chinese in this country, it having been 
found that if the provisions of section 2 of the act of Congress ap¬ 
proved November 8, 1803 (which act itself was the result of prior 
experience), were not liberally complied with, Chinese persons who 
had gained unlawful access to this country ivere constantly being 
declared merchants and allowed to depart from and return to the 
United States as such, when in fact they were ordinary laborers; and 
that, furthermore, Chinamen were constantly being brought into the 
United States on papers prepared in this country and forwarded to 
China, or to foreign contiguous territory, as members of the so-called 
mercantile firms. The extent to which this fraud extended is more 
thoroughly discussed under the chapter on domiciled merchants. 
(See p. 60.) This rule has been dropped from the new regulations. • 

MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENT. 

Rule 30 .—With a view to assisting in the decision of the cases of alleged Chi¬ 
nese merchants, applying for admission to the United States as such, the fol¬ 
lowing instructions are promulgated for the guidance of all officers called upon 
to investigate the character of establishments in which such applicants claim 
to have an interest, to wit: 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


33 


(a) In every case where investigation shows that the alleged mercantile 
establishment has operated in connection with it a laundry, restaurant, gambling 
establishment, or other nonmercantile business, or where there is anything to 
indicate that such establishment is in fact different from that which is claimed, 
it is directed that photographs be taken of the room or rooms occupied by the 
firm, and, if necessary, a view of the front or rear of the building, or both, 
(Followed by instructions as to size and character of photographs, the cost for, 
and manner of, paying for same.) 

This rule also was the result of experience, of the same kind as 
that which brought about Kule 29, and was intended as an additional 
precaution against the frauds mentioned in connection with that rule. 
It has been dropped from the revised regulations. 

DEFINITION OF TERM “ STUDENT.” 

Rule 36 .—In considering evidence touching the right of a Chinese student to 
enter the United States, administrative oflicers should be governed by the 
opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor (of April 
17, 1905) that a Chinese student, within the intention of the treaty of Novem¬ 
ber 17, 1880, and the laws, is a person who intends to imrsue some of the 
higher branches of study, or to become fitted by study for some profession or 
occupation, and for whose support and maintenance in this country as a stu¬ 
dent provision has been made. 

The necessity for defining the term “ student ” arose quite early 
in the experience of administrative officers in enforcing the law. The 
term was defined on June 15, 1900, by the Solicitor of the Treasury, 
holding that a student, within the intention of the laws, w* “ a per¬ 
son who intends to pursue some of the higher branches of study, or 
one who seeks to be fitted for some particular profession or occupa¬ 
tion for which facilities of study are not afforded in his own country, 
and for whose support and maintenance in this country as a student 
provision has been made, and who, upon completion of his studies, 
expects to return to China.” 

Each clause in this definition was the result of numerous cases which 
had arisen at the ports of this country. Chinese youths, bearing 
every indication of being ordinary coolies, would come to the United 
States with the avowed intention of “ studying English ” and would 
then immediately enter upon the occupation of laborers, perhaps for 
a few months, for the sake of appearances, attending a Sunday school 
or a mission night school. Several illustrations of this will be found 
under the chapter on exempt classes (p. 57). It will be noted that 
the definition was slightly changed by the Solicitor of the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor, who is quoted in the rule above given. 
The rule has been attacked as a narrow construction of the treaty 
and laws. It has been eliminated from the last revision. 

TRAVELERS AND OTHERS IN TRANSIT. 


SO .—Every Chinese person seeking the privilege of transit through the 
TTnited States to foreign territory shall, as a condition precedent to being 
allowed such privilege, comply with the following requirements; and if such 
a person is found, in the judgment of the officer in charge at the port of arrival, 
to be seeking the privilege of transit with an ulferior purpose of gaining an 
unlawful access to the United States, he shall be refused permission to land; 

(a) The apj)licant shall be reciuired to produce to the officer in charge of 
the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws at the port of arrival a pre¬ 
paid through ticket across the whole territory of the United States, land or 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-3 



34 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


water, intended to be traversed (and to his alle.£jed foreign destination accord¬ 
ing to the manifest of the vessel on which he arrives) and such other reason¬ 
able proof as may be required of him to satisfy the said officer that a l)ona 
fide transit only is intended and that the applicant does not seek the foreign 
destination named by him with an ulterior purpose of thereby gaining access 
to the United States in violation of law; and such ticket and other evidence 
in writing presented by the applicant must be so stamiied or marked and dated 
by the said officer or his deputy as to prevent their use a second time; but no 
such applicant shall be considered as intending in good faith to make such 
transit only if he has already, on same arrival, made application for and been 
denied admission to the United States. 

{b) The applicant in such case, or some responsible person in his behalf, or 
the transportation company whose through ticket he holds, shall furnish to the 
said officer in charge a good and sufficient bond in the penal sum of $500, condi¬ 
tioned for applicant’s continuous transit through and actual departure from the 
United States within a reasonable time, not exceeding in any instance twenty 
days from the date upon which said privilege is granted; but the said l)ond 
shall not be required of any such applicant who remains on shipboard for 
transit through the water territory of the United States, or who ’is transferred 
from one vessel to another vessel in a port of the United States for a similar 
transit, unless the vessel on which said applicant departs may touch at another 
port of the United States on the way to its foreign port or destination. 

(c) The api)lic{int in every case shall furnish to said officer in charge, to be 
taken as directed by said officer, a photograph of himself in triplicate, and shall 
submit, if he is not a member of one of the exempt classes, to the physical ex¬ 
amination of his person required by the Bertillon system of identification. 

Such criticism as has been directed toward the provisions of this 
rule has always arisen in connection with the cases of Chinese persons 
of what are termed the higher classes, it being regarded by some peo¬ 
ple as an indignity or an outrage for a person of those classes to be 
subjected to the furnishing of photographs and descriptive lists of 
themselves. But any necessity for an observance of the rule in the 
cases of such high-caste persons has been due to their own negligence; 
for article 3 of the treaty of 1880, and section 6 of the act of July 5, 
1884, make ample provision for the transit through this country of 
Chinese of the higher classes, under certificates issued to them by the 
Chinese Government as travelers for curiosity or pleasure. 

Any Chinese person arriving at a port of this country, fortified 
with a section 6 certificate showing him to be a traveler, is prom 23 tly 
accorded the privilege of transit; unless, indeed, as has been true in 
some cases, he controverts his certificate in an unmistakable way by 
statements of his own, or by his personal apjoearance, or by both. In 
fact, it has been the practice when Chinese persons of the higher 
classes, supplied with the certificates required by the treaty and law, 
have applied for the j^rivilege of transit, not onlj^ to grant the request, 
but to tal^e every ])recaution to insure that the persons would be ac¬ 
corded every privilege and not be in any way embarrassed or humili¬ 
ated by administrative officers while traveling through the country. 
In Article III of the treaty provision is also made for the transit 
through this country of persons other than members of the exempt 
classes, j^ersons who could not under any conditions enter the United 
States for the puiq^ose of residence therein; and the above-quoted 
rule was of course intended for the safeguarding of that privilege. 

Under a strict inter])retation of the treaty and laws a member of 
the exenq^t classes could not be allowed to i^ass through the United 
States in transit any more than to actually enter the United States, 
exce}:)t upon the |)resentation of a regular certificate from his own 
Government; but with a view to ]3reventing delay, hardship, and em- 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


85 


barrassment, administrative officers have frequently allowed Chinese 
persons claiming membership in the exempt classes to pass through 
in transit, applying to them the rule above quoted; and it is this 
leniency which has resulted in the criticism mentioned. The neces¬ 
sity for applying to transits one of the alternative Requirements is 
obvious; for, otherwise, any and all Chinese persons who could claim 
and establish by any means that they were not laborers would obtain 
tlie privilege of passing through the United States without any as¬ 
surance that their professqd intentions were bona fide, or that they 
Avould actually depart therefrom, and the exclusion law would by 
that means soon become of no effect. Some illustrations of this will 
be found in the chapter on transits (p. 79) and in the chapter on 
complaints (p. 125). The case referred to in the last-mentioned 
chapter, that of the students who arrived at the port of Boston 
from England, was largely responsible for a change in the above- 
quoted rule, made by the Department on June 24, 1905, in the follow¬ 
ing language: 

Rule Ji2a .—No Chinese person who shall satisfy the officer in charge that he 
belongs to one of the exempt classes (although not supplied with the certificate 
provided for by section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884) or, if not of an exempt 
class, that he is not a laborer shall be required to comply with so much of the 
provisions of rules .30, 40, 41, and 42 as requires Chinese persons seeking the 
privilege of transit to furnish boiyl, to submit photographs of themselves, and to 
be measured according to the Bertillon system of identification. If, however, 
any such Chinese person, after having been admitted to pass in transit through 
the United States, be found therein at the expiration of twenty days from the 
date of such admission, he shall be deemed to be in the United States in viola¬ 
tion of law and shall be deported. 

In the new regulations this change in the rule has been again modi¬ 
fied by restoring to it the requirement that a bond shall be furnished 
in such cases. The reasons for requiring this bond originally, which 
reasons still obtain, as well as for the other provisions of the rule, are 
fully shown in the chapter on transits (p. 79). 

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON TRANSIT REGULATIONS. 

This regulation with regard to transits has been in operation for 
many years. It was promulgated in practically its present form in 
December, 1900, by the Secretary of the Treasury. On May 5, 1902, 
the Supreme Court in the case of Fok Yung Yo v. United States (185 
U. S., 296) handed down an opinion written by Mr. Chief Justice 
Fuller, bearing upon the transit regulations, from which the follow¬ 
ing is extracted: 

On December 8, 1900, Secretary Gage issued regulations amendatory of the 
regulations of September 28, 1889, and addressed “ to collectors of customs and 
all other officers charged with the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion laws,” 
the material parts of which were as follows: 

“ Complaints having reached the Department of attempted violations of the 
laws enacted for the exclusion of Chinese by those who have been allowed to 
pass through the United States to foreign territory, the following rules are 
hereby adopted for your guidance in granting permission for such transit: 

“Aliy Chinese person arriving at your port, claiming to be destined to some 
foreign country, and seeking permission to pass through the United States, or 
any portion thereof, to reach such alleged foreign destination, shall be granted 
permission for such transit only upon complying with the following conditions: ” 
(Quoting regulation). * ♦ ♦ 

Those regulations repeat the requirements of those of 1889 (which took the 
place of previous regulations), that evidence must be produced to satisfy the 


36 


ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS, 


collector “ that a bona fide transit only is intended.*' Clearly in the absence of 
provision for review his decision is final. 

The doctrine is firmly established that the power to exclude or expel aliens is 
vested in the political departments of the Government, to be regulated by treaty 
or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according 
to such regulations, except so far as the judicial department is authorized by 
treaty or by statute, or is' required by the Constitution, to intervene. (Fong 
Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 
158 U. S., 538; Li Sing v. United States, 180 U. S., 486.) 

And as a general proposition this must be true of the privilege of transit. 

^ ip. 

In short, the privilege of transit, although it is one that should not be with¬ 
held without good cause, is nevertheless conceded only on such terms as the 
particular government prescribes in view of the well-being of its own people. 
If, then, these regulations have the force of law, they bind the courts. 

The first article of the treaty of December 8, 1894, provides that “ the coming, 
except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the 
United States shall be absolutely prohibited.” The second paragraph of Article 
III reads; “ It is also agreed that Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy 
the privilege of transit across the territory of the United States in the course of 
their journey to or from other countries, subject to such regulations by the 
Government of the United States as may be necessary to prevent such privilege 
of transit from being abused.” 

We regard this as explicitly recognizing existing regulations and as assenting 
to their continuance and to such modification of them as might be found neces¬ 
sary to prevent abuse. It dealt with the subject specifically, and was operative 
without an act of Congress to carry it into effect. 

4< * 4c 

Necessarily the collector’s decision could not be controlled by the bare pro¬ 
duction of a through ticket to a point in foreign territory. The very question to 
be determined is good faith in the transit, and good faith would be lacking if 
that transit were merely a means of effecting admission into the United States. 
And the decision of the Treasury Department as to the right of admission is 
made final by statute. 

For instance, it is difficult, if not impossible, to police effectively the long 
frontier between the United States and Mexico, and if, in a given case, a Chinese 
laborer arrives at San Francisco ostensibly bound to a port in Mexico, but going 
there for the purpose of crossing thence into this country, this would be an 
abuse of the privilege, and denial of transit would be justified. ♦ ♦ * 

CHINESE ATTENDING EXPOSITIONS. 

Rule —Every Chinese person seeking admission to the United States under 
the provisions of section 3 of the act approved April 29, 1902, for the purpose 
of taking part in any fair or exhibition authorized by act of Congress, shall, 
as a condition precedent to such admission, comply with the following condi¬ 
tions, and officers charged with the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws 
shall likewise, so far as action on their part is required, conform thereto: 

(a) Every such person shall furnish to the officer in charge of the enforcement 
of the Chinese-exclusion laws at the port of entry satisfactory evidence that he 
is a holder of a privilege from the officers of said exposition or an employee of 
a holder of such a privilege engaged to take part therein. 

(1)) He shall furnish to the said officer in charge at the port of entry a 
photograph of himself, in triplicate, and shall submit to such examination as 
may be deemed necessary to insure his identification. 

(c) He shall, if admitted, proceed immediately, by direct and continuous 
travel, to the said exposition, wherever located; remain there during his stay 
in the United States; engage while there solely in the occupation for which he 
was admitted; return within thirty days after the close of said exposition by 
direct and continuous'travel to the port at which he was admitted, and thence 
depart, by the first vessel sailing thereafter, to China or to the country of which 
he is a citizen or subject. 

(d) He shall furnish to the United States officer in charge, hy whom he is 
admitted, a bond of .$.500, of a character satisfactory to the Department, con¬ 
ditioned for his immediate departure to said exposition grounds, his constant 
attendance and employment at said grounds, and his departure from the United 
States, all in accordance with the next preceding paragraph hereof. 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. B7 

(e) The following form of record shall be kept in duplicate by the officer in 
charge at the port of admission of all Chinese persons admitted in accordance 
with these regulations, the original to be kept on file at said port and the 
duplicate to be forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration, Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor: 

I OEM OF CHINESE RECORD. 


CHINESE employee’s RECORD OF ADMISSION. 


Department of Com¬ 
merce AND Labor. 



U. S. Immigration Service, 
Port of — 


Bureau of Immigration. 
File No. — of Ifrecord 


Name,-. 

Native of-. 

Employed by - 

-, of -, an 

exhibitor at the-. 

When admitted, -. 

(Here attach photo¬ 
graph to both duplicate 
and original.) 


This is to certify that-, a native of 

-, who is duly accredited as an employee 

of - -, of -, an exhibitor at the 

-, U. S. A., has been permitted to enter the 

United States as such employee (or exhibitor) in 
pnrsuance of an act of Congress approved April 
29, 1902. 

(Name of officer) - -, 

(Title of officer) - 


(Duplicate to be forwarded to Commissioner- 
General of Immigi’ation.) 


if) An officer, or officers. If necessary, will be designated to remain at the 
grounds of said exposition, whose duty it shall be to keep, in duplicate, a record, 
in the following form (unless hereafter modified), of every Chinese person 
admitted under these rules and regulations to take part in said exposition; 

FORM OF report. 


File No., 


Name of employee or exhibitor,- 

Sex,-. 

Age,-. 

Name of exhibitor by whom employed. 


(Place to attach photo¬ 
graph.) 


Character of work to be done In connection with 
exhibition, -. 

What hours and how many per diem employed. 


Time of arrival at exhibition grounds, - 

Time of departure from exhibition grounds. 


(Signature of Chinese employee or exhibitor.) 


(Signature of officer or officers.) 
(Duplicate to be forwarded to Commissioner- 
General of Immigration.) 


Said officer or officers shall also have such supervision over every such 
Chinese person and such duties in relation to them as are authorized by law 
and these regulations and instructions issued thereunder. 

(g) That one of the photographs provided for in paragraph (6) hereinbefore 
shall be sent by the officer at the port of arrival at which any such Chinese 
person is admitted to the officer or officers provided for in paragraph if) of 
these regulations, who shall attach said photograph to the form of report 
prescribed, using it as a means of identification of the person whose portrait 
it is. 

ih) Should any such Chinese person desire to leave the grounds of said 
exposition temporarily, he must apply to the officer provided for in paragraph 
{f) hereof, who may issue to him a dated card, giving his name and other 
particulars for his identification and stating that he is permitted to absent him¬ 
self from said grounds not longer than forty-eight hours from the date of said 
card, which shall, upon his return within the specified time, be delivered to 
said officer and canceled. 









































38 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


(i) All Chinese persons holding such cards who fail to return within the 
prescribed period shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States, 
and the bonds given on their behalf shall be forfeited and such person shall be 
deported. The officer designated to issue said cards shall promptly notify the 
Commissioner-General of Immigration of the absence, in violation of these 
regulations, of any Chinese person, in order that the penalty of the bond given 
in his behalf shall be collected and such Chinese person deported. 

{]) Immediately after the expiration of the thirty days following the close 
of said exposition the officers at the ports of arrival at which any Chinese per¬ 
son is admitted are directed to report to the Commissioner-General of Immigra¬ 
tion the total number, together with names, etc., of the Chinese persons who 
were admitted at their ports, respectively, for the purpose stated, and the 
numbers and names of those who have l)een properly identified and permitted 
to depart, in accordance with these regulations. 

The above-quoted provisions were drawn expressly to meet the 
conditions which it Avas anticipated would arise in connection with 
the admission of Chinese laborers for participation in the then con¬ 
templated Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Mo. That . 
being their purpose, a temporary one, they have been omitted from the 
latest revision of the regulations; but there can be no doubt that, 
should another fair be held and similar privileges accorded the 
Chinese, it would be necessary to promulgate them or others quite 
similar to them, with a view to safeguarding properly the admission 
of such persons. Notwithstanding the clearness with Avhich Con¬ 
gress expressed its intent with regard to the admission of Chinese 
laborers for participation in the St. Louis fair, in the act of April 29, 
1902 (32 Stat., pt. 1, p. 176), and in spite of the plain and detailed 
manner in which the above-quoted regulations were draAvn, rule 44 
has been, perhaps, as extensively criticised as all of the other provi¬ 
sions of law and regulations combined. As the said rule has been 
made the basis of such extensiAT complaint and has even been charged 
Avith the responsibility for the Chinese boycott ujDon American goods, 
it is deemed proper to give a full description of the circumstances 
which, in the Department’s view, justified its promulgation and of 
what was accomplished by its use. 

CHINESE AT OMAHA AND ATLANTA FAIRS. 

Wlien it became necessary to draft regulations to meet the require¬ 
ments in the act above mentioned, “ both as to the admission and re¬ 
turn of such (Chinese) person or persons,” the Bureau of Immigra¬ 
tion, then a part of the Treasury Department, directed one of its 
officers to interview the supervising special agent of the Treasury 
Department Avith regard to the practices Avhich had obtained in con¬ 
nection with prior expositions for participation in Avhich Chinese 
laborers had been allowed to enter the United States. The folloAviim 
IS a copy of a memorandum prepared by him, shoAving the result of 
such conference. 

It appears from inquiry made at the office of the supervising special agent. 
Treasury Department, in whose hands the administration of the laws in rela¬ 
tion to the exclusion of Chinese was reposed prior to June G, 1900, that no 
formal regulations were issued by the Treasury Department to insure the de¬ 
parture of Chinese admitted to take part in exhibitions in this country. It 
was stated that no direct authority to this effect was conferred by the statutes, 
which waived the provisions of the Chinese-exclusion law for the purpose indi¬ 
cated. Letters, however, were written to the collectors directing them to 
require proof that the persons bringing such Chinese held concessions from the 
officers of such fairs; that they required the number brought for use at such 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CIIINESE-EXCLUSIOFT LAWS. 


39 


exhibitions; that they would take them out of the country within the six 
months usually specified as the limit after the close of the fair within which 
such Chinese must depart; and the collector was furthermore required to take 
a list of all those admitted, hy name, giving some brief physical description 
for the purpose of identittcation. These persons so admitted were required to 
report, through the instructions of the person by whom they were brought in, 
to an officer of the Treasury Department stationed at each of such exhibitions, 
and, from time to time, as the latter desired, to report to him for identification. 
It was stated that many of those admitted never reached the grounds of the 
exhibition to take part in which they were allowed to enter the United States, 
and, furthermore, that the Department had no assurance of their departure, 
either within the specified time or any subsequent date. 

Recently a report was made at the instance of the Bureau by the collector 
of customs at San Francisco, which shows that of a number admitted to take 
part in an exhibit entitled “ The Chee Mee Village,” at the Omaha Exposition, 
360 were missing from the exposition grounds some time before the close of the 
exhibition, of the ultimate location of whom no information has been obtainable. 

All the instructions upon this sul)ject issued by the Treasury Department 
through the division of the supervising special agent have been transcribed in 
longhand in folio volumes containing, as well, all the other official corre¬ 
spondence of said division. Substantially, however, it was learned from the 
chief clerk of said division that the foregoing account accords with the instruc¬ 
tions given in such letters. 

As further illustrating the facility with which the Chinese gained admission 
under such arrangements, it was stated by the said officer that tlie president 
of the Cotton States Exposition, at Atlanta, being called upon for information, 
informed the Department that not more than 50 Chinese i)ers()ns would be neces¬ 
sary to properly handle the Chinese exhibits thereat. Sul)se(iuently the person 
holding the concession demanded the admission of 700, and convinced the presi¬ 
dent of said exposition that such number was necessary, as was shown by a 
communication from the latter to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

As to these, also, the Department had no assurance of their departure, either 
within the specified time or subsequently. 

Conceivably some of these Chinamen may be among those who were saved 
the expense of returning to their own country by submitting to arrest and order 
of deportation, the cost of executing such order being defrayed from the appro¬ 
priation for the enforcement of Chinese-exclusion acts. (Bu. Im. file No. 
11047 C.) 

CHINESE AT ST. LOUIS FAIR. 


A full description of the difficulties which arose in connection with 
the application of rule 44 to the Chinese seeking to enter this country 
for particiiiation in the St. Louis fair is given in a memorandum sub¬ 
mitted by the Commissioner-General to the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor on April 29, 1904 (Bu. Im. file No. 11047 C), a copy of 
which follows: 


When the invitation, so often referred to, was extended to the Chinese Gov¬ 
ernment and its people to take part in the Louisiana 1‘urchase Exposition, as 
there were statutory provisions limiting the right of admission under any cir¬ 
cumstances to Chinese persons coming to the United States, said statutes con¬ 
stituted a notice that the invitfition was subject to said statutory conditions. 
There was not at the time of issuing said invitation any legislative expression 
of a purpose to waive the provisions of the said statutes, nor could such waiver 
have been made otherwise than hy act of Congress. 

By treaty agreement, as well as by law, Chinese officials might, at any time, 
without other evidence than such as would establish .their official chavacter 
and their personal identity, enter the United States. (Sec. 13, 22 Stat, p. 58; 
sec. 13, 23 Stat, p. 115; sec. 14, 25 Stat., p. 476; article 3, 28 Stat, p. 1210.) 
In addition to such officials, both by hnv and by treaty, merchants, students, 
teachers, and travelers for curiosity or pleasure might also enter upon produc¬ 
ing the prescribed evidence of their respective occupations or purposes. (Sec. 
6 23 Stat, p. 115; article 3, 28 Stat, p. 1210.) It is evident, therefore, that 
at the time the invitation referred to was extended Chinese officials might 
freely enter the United States for whatever purpose they might seek admission. 
It is'also clear that merchan'ts might enter, the class of persons who are repre- 


40 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

sented to be particularly interested in making exhibits at the exposition of 
their wares and merchandise. In addition to these and the other two specified 
classes all other Chinese persons not laborers, whose purpose in coming was to 
gratify their curiosity or enjoy the pleasure of witnessing the exhibits, might 
also come. It would therefore appear that the classes of Chinese who desired 
admission either for business of for pleasure might come to the Louisiana Ex¬ 
position without other condition than the presentation of that evidence required 
by section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, to establish their status. That evidence, 
as is well known, consists of a certificate in the English language showing the 
permission of the Chinese Government and describing the holder so definitely 
as to insure his indentification with the person so permitted, containing the 
vis^ of the United States consular officer in China. Nothing more than this 
was required under the law, and by conforming to this requirement visitors of 
the classes mentioned might freely come to take part in or to enjoy the exposi¬ 
tion at St. Louis. 

There is, however, an express inhibition, both in the laws and in the treaty, 
against the admission of Chinese lal»orers. If such were to he included within 
the invitation above referred to, it would be necessary for Congress to make 
special provision for their admission. 

Before directing attention to the legislative action which was taken upon 
this point, it is necessary to call attention to the provision of the immigration 
laws forbidding the importation of aliens, without limitation or condition as to 
their race, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States. It is 
evident, therefore, that to entitle Chinese for whose admission there is no 
express provision of law to come to the Louisiana Purchase Exposition it was 
necessary that Congress should waive the provisions of the immigration law, 
above referred to, as well as of the Chinese-exclusion laws and treaty. 

Having these facts before it. Congress passed a law which received the Execu¬ 
tive sanction on April 29, 1902, in w^hich it provided, in section 3 thereof— 

“ That nothing in the provisions of this act or any other act shall be con¬ 
strued to prevent, hinder, or restrict any foreign exhibitor, representative, 
or citizen of any foreign nation, or the holder who is a citizen of any foreign 
nation, of any concession or privilege from any fair or exposition authorized 
by act of Congress from bringing into the United States, under contract, 
such mechanics, artisans, agents, or other employees, natives of their re¬ 
spective foreign countries, as they or any of them may deem necessary for 
the purpose of making preparation for installing or conducting any business 
authorized or permitted under or by virtue of or pertaining to any concession 
or privilege which may have been or may be granted by any said fair or expo¬ 
sition in connection with such exposition, under such rules and regulations as 
the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, both as to the admission and return 
of such person or persons.” 

It will be seen that this language, though its verbiage is somewhat elaborate, 
merely waives so much of the requirements of the laws in relation to the ex¬ 
clusion of Chinese, and so much of any other law as would prevent the bring¬ 
ing into the United States “under contract” such “mechanics, artisans, agents, 
or other employees” (to wit, laborers) as might be necessary to accomplish 
the design of a holder of any privilege at said exposition in installing or con¬ 
ducting the exhibit such a holder proposes to make thereat. There was no 
further relaxation of the Chinese-exclusion or any other laws-. The lan¬ 
guage did not impose any further conditions upon the admission of persons 
of the exempt classes. Neither did it waive any of the conditions required of 
such classes seeking admission to this country. The reference in the quoted 
language is clearly to those persons who are forbidden admission to the 
United States by the Chinese-exclusion laws, and it waives as to such persons 
also the alien contract-labor provision of the immigration laws. For the pur¬ 
pose of this memorandum, therefore, it is not necessary to consider other 
classes than those who, under the laws, could not be admitted to the United 
States' under any conditions. That this was the view of the legislature is shown 
by the further fact that in said quoted language a provision is made for the 
issuance of executive regulations so framed as to insure, not alone the admis¬ 
sion of the persons contemplated by said language, but, as well, to insure their 
departure at the conclusion of the exposition. Congress having also before it 
information of the flagrant abuse of hospitality and violation of law by Chi¬ 
nese persons who had been admitted to take part in former expositions. 

After the passage of the above-mentioned act regulations were promulgated 
requiring that Chinese persons admitted under its provisions should be required 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHTNESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 41 


to give bond, conditioned for their departure at the close of the exposition, 
and requiring them to comply with other conditions, confessedly strict, but 
necessarily so to pi-event such persons from being substituted by others who 
might desire to return, leaving the ones so admitted to remain in defiance of 
law. 

These regulations, so promulgated, were immediately, and unreasonably, ob¬ 
jected to as constituting a breach of the laws of hospitality, as preventing 
mercliants from coming to take part in the exposition, and therefore destructive 
of the purpose of inviting the Chinese to take part therein, to wit, increasing 
the commercial intercourse between this country and China and as even pre¬ 
venting visitors coming from the last-mentioned country, as visitors, to said 
. exposition. Since Chinese of the exempt classes, as has already been pointed 
out, could freely come on presentation of section 6 certificates and as officials 
were also admissible upon identification and establishment of their official 
character, it is plain that the objections referred to were either made in 
ignorance of the provisions of law or with the distinct purpose of casting upon 
the executive branch of this Government entrusted with the enforcement of 
the Chinese-exclusion laws the undeserved odium of endeavoring to prevent a 
creditable exhibition on the part of the Chinese Government and of its mer¬ 
chants at the said fair and of endeavoring at the same time to subject Chinese 
visitors to the mortifying and unnecessary restrictions, a submission to which 
was not possible on the part of such persons with a due regard to their own 
self-respect. 

It was, however, impossible to inform all the ignorant of their mistake, and 
doubtless it would have been equally impossible to convince those who wilfully 
misjudged the action of the Department in adopting the said regulations, so 
that, as time pressed, it was decided to modify the regulations so as to at least 
silence the objections raised as to the alleged interference by said regulations 
with the admission of merchants to take part in the exposition. The Bureau 
did not at all concede that any such modification was necessary; still less did 
it concede that the regulations had the effect charged, either as regarded visitors 
or merchants, and least of all was it prepared to admit that the said regula¬ 
tions contained any provision not absolutely necessary, in the light of experi¬ 
ence, to carry out the express intent of the above-quoted language as regards 
“ the return of such person or persons.” However, to silence the clamor that 
had been raised, there was incorporated in the said regulations, which were 
also modified in some other respects for the same purpose, a provision (see para¬ 
graph “ e,” regulations July 27, 1903) declaring that merchants coming to the 
United States to exhibit their wares at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition 
should not be required to comply with certain specified conditions mentioned in 
said regulations—regulations, be it remembered, which in no wise applied to 
Chinese of the exempt classes and therefore not to merchants—and that they 
should be admitted upon a certificate of their home government, stating simply 
that they were merchants and that they were coming to the United States for 
the purpose above stated. This regulation clearly was a relaxation of the law. 
It allowed merchants to enter the United States upon some other and less 
elaborate evidence than that expressly prescribed in section 6 of the act of 
July 5, 1884. So far concessions were made, whether necessary or not, to those 
who claimed that the regulations as originally adopted interfered with the 
successful participation either by the Chinese Government or its people in the 
said exposition. It is, therefore, submitted that every disposition has been 
shown, even to the extent of relaxing the law, in the manner just indicated, on 
the part of the administration to facilitate the purposes of those interested in the 
said exposition, either in this country or in China. Visitors may now come 
freely as travelers for curiosity or pleasure, remain at the fair grounds, come 
and go therefrom at their own free will, and remain as long in the country 
thereafter as they see fit, unless they should engage as laborers. Merchants 
may also come and need not present the section 6 certificates required of the 
last above-mentioned class, but will be admitted upon a simple declaration of 
their mercantile character and their object in coming here, by their Government, 
duly visaed by the United States consular officer at the port from which they 
come. 

These concessions, however, have in no wise stilled the clamor that had been 
raised against the regulations. A ])ropaganda of resistance to Chinese exclu¬ 
sion has continued actively to misrepresent, either through ignorance or delib¬ 
erate jiurpose, the situation as regards the admission of Chinese to take part in 
the exposition. J'he magazines, the public press, and the comnieicial oiganiza- 


42 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


tions of the country have taken part, to some extent, in this practice. Such an 
explanation as the foregoing, therefore, seems to be necessary to properly state 
the true position of administrative officers in this regard. 

Since the adoption of the said regulations of July 27, 1903, Chinese persons 
have sought admission to the United States and have failed to present the pre¬ 
scribed evidence of their right to admission. Ample time was given—six months— 
before the said provisions were enforced, so far as the evidence to be presented 
at the port of arrival is concerned, in order to prevent any just claim that the 
people of China had not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with 
the regulations. Merchants have come to the port of San Francisco and pre¬ 
sented papers which neither comply with section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, 
nor with the regulation referred to. These people have, notwithstanding such 
omission on their part, been regularly admitted under special orders of the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, upon the assurance of the Chinese minister, 
in some instances, that they were officials of the Chinese Government; in other 
instances that they were actually merchants, and that, if admitted, steps would 
be taken to avoid similar errors in the future. The action of the officers at 
the ports in detaining such persons, although strictly in compliance with law 
and regulations, has been the subject of much adverse criticism as a result of 
representations made to the Chinese Government. Reply has been made that 
that Government has not heretofore understood what was required by the regu¬ 
lation, but that in future it will strictly comply with it. It is also suggested by 
the Chinese Government that, in consequence of said misunderstanding on its 
part as to what was meant in the regulation by the identification of a Chinese 
merchant as such and a statement of his purpose in coming here, many mer¬ 
chants had then departed and were now on their way to the United States. 
With respect to these a liberal interpretation of the law and regulations is re¬ 
quested. It is submitted that thus far the action of administrative officers has 
uniformly been liberal, in view of the foregoing statements, and it is assumed, 
as the result of such prior action, the Department will continue to make as 
liberal a construction in favor of the admission of Chinese presenting defect¬ 
ive papers as will consist with the observance of the limitation placed upon its 
authority in this respect by law. 

* EXPOSITION MEEELY A MEANS OF EVADING LAW. 

There were some exhibitors at the World’s Fair who undoubtedly 
came to this country with the bona fide intention of exhibiting them 
wares and increasing the commercial intercourse between the two 
countries. These persons, without exception, were treated with the 
utmost courtesy and consideration by all Government officers with 
whom they came in contact, such officers often going out of their way 
to accommodate and assist the exhibitors, and to render their stay 
at St. Louis both profitable and enjoyable. (Bu. Im. file No. 11047 
C.) The anticipations of the immigration officials were amply ful¬ 
filled, how^ever, with regard to the majority of the Chinese brought 
to this country as employees of exhibitors, especially as to those im¬ 
ported in connection with what was known as the “ Chinese Village 
on the Pike.” 

In a report dated July 29, 1905, an extract from which is quoted 
in the last annual report of the.Commissioner-General (pp. 91, 92), 
the inspector in charge at St. Louis stated that of those Chinese over 
whom supervision was maintained there were 239, all of whom, Avith 
the possible exception of four jugglers (and it later transpired that 
even the four jugglers were planning to remain in this country, for 
they escaped from St. Louis, were arrested in Chicago, and after some 
delay were ordered deported by the district court at that city), were 
brought Avithin the United States for the sole purpose of evacling the 
exclusion laws and remaining here j^ermanently. Of the 239, 1 
escaped, but was recaptured, 1 died, 12 Avere arrested and deported, 
and the remaining 22G Avere returned to San Francisco on a 



ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


43 


train under guard and transported to China. But for the enforce¬ 
ment of rule 44, therefore, it is certain that the unlawful Chinese 
population of this country would have been increased by at least 238 
persons. Moreover, it is also clear by the records of the Bureau of 
Immigration that but for these rules many more Chinese laborers 
would have been brought to St. Louis with the intention of having 
‘them escape and remain in the United States. 

FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. 

Numbers of coolies were certified by the Chinese Government and 
their certificates viseed by the then American consul-general at Can¬ 
ton as merchants coming to this country to exhibit at the fair, but 
the Government was fortunate enough in a number of these cases 
to liaA^'e the applicants controvert their certificates under examination, 
and thus stop them at the proposed port of entry, immediately deport¬ 
ing them to China. This feature of the case is closely related to the 
discussion of the section 6 certificate frauds in Chapter IV (p. 51). 
The following letter, received from the United States consul-general 
at Hongkong, is interesting in this connection: 

Consular Service, U. S. A., 

Hongkong, March 28, 190^. 

Hon. F. S. Stratton, Collector. 

Sir : The reports are so direct and apparently well founded that I feel it my 
duty to advise you that Canton has for some time past and is still certifying 
flocks of coolies as exhibitors to the St. Louis Fair. I presume they are dis¬ 
tributed between San Francisco and the northern ports. 

The scheme, briefly outlined, is a cooj)erative association that furnishes mem¬ 
bers with articles supposed to be exhibits. The details as to the sums paid by 
the villages where the coolies come from and the syndicate I can not give, but 
while large sums are paid in for membership, equipment, and certificates, it is 
provided to be repaid with interest out of the earnings of the cooly and the 
amount for which he sells his patent. 

The consulate at Canton receives liberal compensation for its aid in putting 
the thing through successfully. It is a big graft, and the Canton influence has 
been able thus far to cover up a continued series of monstrous jobbery that has 
become a hissing and a byword in the East. 

If you can throttle and expose the rascality and rottenness and bring the 
perpetrators to light and justice you will have the thanks of the Americans in 
the East. 

I am, sir, very sincerely, yours, 

Edward S. Bragg, Consul-General. 

(Bu. Im. file No. 11047 C.) 

IMPORTATION OF PROSTITUTES. 

Tliere is also abundant evidence that certain persons interested in 
the Chinese village intended to avail themselves of the opportunity 
afforded by the fair to import large numbers of Chinese women of 
the prostitute class and arrange for their escape and permanent resi¬ 
dence in this country. Twelve such persons were actually brought 
to the fair grounds, and when sufficient evidence as to their calling 
could be gathered thev were arrested and were returnecl to China, on 
the ground that they had entered this country in violation of the im¬ 
migration laws, uncler which prostitutes are classed as inadmissible. 
Others of the same class were stopped at San Francisco and denied 
admission upon their own confessions as to what their occupation had 
been in China. The Chinese village concession at the exposition 


44 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


proved a financial failure. Two of the proprietors of the scheme, 
one a prominent “ Chinese merchant ” of Philadelphia, were arrested 
for violating the exclusion laws; and, as above stated, the laborers 
who had been induced to come to this country under assurances that 
they would be permanently landed, were returned to China, in a very 
indignant frame of mind, at a cost to this Government of $18,214.84. 
(Bu. Im. file No. 11047 C.) 

CHARGES OF PERSECUTION BY OFFICIALS. 

Rule 52 .—Every Chinese laborer found within the United States without the 
certificate of registration prescribed by law shall be arrested, after being al¬ 
lowed a reasonable opportunity under the close surveillance of the officer mak¬ 
ing such arrest to produce such certificate, by any officer charged with the en¬ 
forcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws; and shall be taken by such officer 
before a justice, judge, or commissioner of a United States court in order that 
a warrant may be issued upon the oath of such officer for the commitment and 
trial of the said Chinese laborer. 

Rule 53 .—Chinese persons who gain admission to the United States as 
members of the admissible classes and who, after admission become laborers, 
shall be arrested as being unlawfully in this country, as provided in rule 52. 

These two regulations have been stigmatized as calculated to un¬ 
duly impress Chinese inspectors with the part of their duty relating 
to the arrest of Chinese found in this country without the credentials 
required by law to establish the legality of their residence, it being 
claimed that under these mandatory provisions the officers continu¬ 
ally make searching inquiry and investigatioji, which amount to 
what is styled persecution, etc. The rules, however, were merely 
intended to place before the officers the plain provisions and intent 
of the law itself. As is pointed out in detail in the chapter entitled 
“ Conditions in general” (p. 7), it would be utterly useless to attempt 
an enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws without arresting such 
persons as despite those laws gain admission to this country, the 
conditions being such that necessarily some persons gain admission 
by deceit and fraud at the ports of entry or surreptitiously across the 
land boundaries, and to allow such persons to remain in this country 
umnolested would merely place a premium upon the successful evasion 
of the laws at the ports and on the borders. In the new regulations 
just issued the terms of rule 52 have been “softened” by changing 
the form from the positive to the negative; and from the new regu¬ 
lations rule 53 has been omitted. 

CRITICISM BY CHINESE OFFICIAL. 

The most comprehensive criticism that has ever been made of the 
Chinese-exclusion re^ilations is contained in an article entitled 
“A Menace to America’s Oriental Trade,” by Wong Kai Kah, His 
Imperial Chinese Majesty’s vice-commissioner to the Louisiana Pur¬ 
chase Exposition, which appeared in the North American Review, 
of March, 1904. (N. A. Rev., 178, January-June, 1904, p. 414.) 

This article has been extensively read and commented upon, and has 
been the basis of numerous letters addressed to the Bureau of Immi¬ 
gration, calling for an explanation of the matter contained therein. 
Among these requests one emanating from Hon. George A. Loud, 
M. C., of All Sable, Mich., was answered at length, in the first 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


45 


instance furnishing information of a specific character (similar 
to that already given in this paper at pages 36 and 43 of this chapter) 
with regard to rule 44 and the conditions existing at the St. Louis 
fair, and, in the second place, by a letter in which the criticisms con¬ 
tained in the niagazine ai'ticle mentioned were taken up seriatim. 
In view of the importance of the said article, this paper would not 
be complete without containing a copy of the reply made thereto. 

A copy is accordingly given, and, as the criticism was directed 
against a former edition of the regulations, the numbers under which 
such regulations are designated in the pamphlet of May, 1905—the 
edition discussed in this chapter—have been inserted in parentheses 
after the old numbers given in the Department’s letter to Mr. Loud: 


No. 12019 C. 


Hon. George A. Loud, M. C., 


Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, May 25, 190If. 


An Sahle, Mich. 


Dear Sir : The Department has your letter of the 16th instant, acknowledg¬ 
ing receipt of its letter explaining, at your instance, the scope of the regula¬ 
tions governing the admission of Chinese to take part in the lA)uisiana Purchase 
Exposition. 

It notes that you did not regard so much of the article of Mr. Wong Kai Kah, 
imperial vice-commissioner to the St. Louis Exposition, as related to those regu¬ 
lations in particular as of “ much account,” because, as you state, so much 
of the said article pertains merely to a temporary condition. You say, however, 
that you are much disappointed that no reply was made to the charges in the 
said article that the permanent and general conditions in regard to Chinese 
persons represented by the regulations were unjust and unfair to the exempt 
class of Chinese coming into the United States. 

These charges have had considerable circulation. In proper ways the Depart¬ 
ment has undertaken to set forth the facts, and feels that it has satisfactorily 
answered such of the adverse comment as appeared worthy of serious consid¬ 
eration. Apart from the fact that it is out of the question for a Department 
of the Government to undertake to reply to many unwarranted criticisms of 
its methods, its officials have felt it to be the wiser course to depend upon the 
faith of the people of this country in the probity and justice of the administra¬ 
tion selected by them to enforce these laws. Certainly it should require no 
argument to convince a fair-minded citizen that his proper attitude toward the 
administration is one based upon the assumption that its action is governed by 
law, applied with a due regard to the principles of natural justice, and rigorous 
only so far as necessity requires to prevent violation of law. 

The Department is glad, however, to undertake briefly to reply to so much of 
the article to which you refer as appears to afford any ground for a belief that 
• it would tolerate a wanton disregard of the rights of citizens of China con¬ 
ceded to them by the treaty between that Government and the Government of 
the United States. 

As a general proposition it is asserted that all of the regulations in regard 
to Chinese exclusion, including those to which Mr. Wong refers, represent the 
accumulated experience of both administrative and judicial officers of this 
Government with the devices resorted to for the purpose of securing the ad¬ 
mission to the United States and the residence therein of persons of that race 
who are actually laborers, under the guise of members of the exempt classes. 
To show that this statement is well supported, the Department may refer to 
the fact that it is constantly at the expense of deporting to China large num¬ 
bers of such persons who have been found by the courts to have entered the 
United States unlawfully in spite of all the precautions that have been taken 
by administrative officers, and that within the past few days authority has been 
issued to a United States marshal to incur an expense of approximately $10,000 
in deporting to China more than 60 Chinese persons found to be here in viola¬ 
tion of law. The Department concedes that the regulations are strict, but it 
holds that they are necessarily so, and it has cited the above illustration to 
prove that, strict as such regulations are, they yet fail to check extensive viola¬ 
tions of law. Where the responsibility rests for this condition of affairs it is 


46 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


difficult to state. There are large interests opposed to Chinese exclusion, which 
interests have been represented before Congress on every occasion when the con¬ 
sideration of the policy of exclusion was before the legislative branch of the 
Government. There are many others, apparently, to whom exclusion laws are a 
means of lucrative employment through connivance at the unlawful entry of 
Chinese of the excluded classes at a liberal charge against such Chinese as the 
price of such connivance. This is a feature of the case, however, that it is 
not the purpose of the Department to enlarge upon in this letter. It will con¬ 
fine itself to a consideration, categorically, of the executive rulings to which 
Mr. Wong objects. 

The ruling to which he first adverts is the following: 

“ Collectors of customs 4 re directed to admit only Chinese whose occupation 
or station clearly indicate that they are members of the exempt class.” 

This ruling embodies an opinion of the Attorney-General, judicial findings of 
the courts, and the following statement of the United States commissioners who 
negotiated the treaty: 

“ We desired, as you will see by the precisis of the negotiation, to define with 
more precision exactly what all the negotiators on both sides understood by 
‘ Chinese laborers; ’ but the Chinese Government was very unwilling to be more 
precise than the absolute necessity called for, and they claimed that in article 
2 they did by exclusion provide that nobody should be entitled to claim the 
benefit of the general provisions of the Burlingame treaty but those who went 
to the United States for purposes of teaching, study, mercantile transactions, 
travel, or curiosity. We have no doubt that an act of Congress excluding all but 
these classes, using the words of the treaty, would be fully warranted by its pro¬ 
visions, and as this was a clear and sufficient modification of the sixth article 
of the Burlingame treaty, we did not feel authorized to risk such a concession 
by insisting upon language which would really mean no more, and which was 
entirely unacceptable to the Chinese commissioners. There is not in the treaty 
any language which modifies this concession, and there was not, as we think, the 
slightest intention on the part of the Chinese commissioners to diminish the 
full force of the discretion given to the United States.” 

(Foreign Rel. U. S., 1881, page 177.) 

This letter to Secretary Evarts shows that the Chinese commissioners agreed, 
on behalf of their country, to the view’ embodied in the above regulation. 

The article under consideration then quotes rules 6 (5), 7 (6), and 8 (13), 
italicizing certain portions thereof, evidently for the purpose of indicating that 
the italicized words were particularly open to objection. Thus, in rule 6, the 
instructions which forbid communication between Chinese applicants for admis¬ 
sion, before the primary examination of such persons, and other persons, is so 
emphasized. This instruction, how’ever, w’as not issued until after practical 
experience of the result of such communication. There wms no fact within the 
knowledge of any such person which he was not able to communicate freely and 
frankly, through a competent Chinese interpreter, to the administrative officer, 
but, under the plea of ignorance of our language and customs, local counsel and 
fellow-countrymen sought interviews with the applicants and in such interviews 
coached them as to the nature of the replies they should make to the interroga¬ 
tories of the Government officers. This enabled such counsel and Chinese- 
friends to corroborate in every detail the answers of the applicants, and thus the 
Government, to avoid the results of such deception, was constrained to deny 
such private interview's before the primary examination, at which each of such 
applicants w’as committed to certain definite statements of fact of which their 
counsel and friends, unless acting in good faith and from a knowledge of the 
facts, could have no information and which they therefore could not be sure of 
corroborating. These instructions w'ere particularly necessary in the case of 
those who claimed to have been born in the United States, of which class alone 
more than 300 have arrived within the last nine months at one port on the 
Canadian border. 

Another italicized expression in the said rule is that which directs the landing 
of such applicants upon the production by them of proof of their right to land. 
This is no more than the law^ requires. Section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, 
ex])ressly requires the production of a certain certificate by every Chinese per¬ 
son who claims to be a member of one of the exempt classes as a condition 
precedent to his admission. It is also in accord with the rules of evidence 
w’hich cast the burden of proof upon those making an affirmative statement. 
Moreover, the Geary act, passed in 1892, expressly imposes upon those who are 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 47 


arrested in the United States for being here iiiilawfnlly to prove affirmatively 
that they are entitled by law to remain in the United States. 

In rule 7 (6) the italics indicate that objection is made to the fact that the 
preliminary examination of Chinese is to be “ apart from the public,” to be in 
the presence of. such witnesses only as the examining officer shall designate, 
and that counsel of those who desire to appeal may not make copies of the 
evidence upon which the excluding decdsion is based. The various immigration 
laws expressly provide that the examination of all aliens who seek admission 
to this country shall be separate and apart from the public. In this respect, 
therefore, there is no discrimination against the Chinese. The reason for such 
private examination will be obvious when the opportunities for prompting in 
foreign tongues not known to the inspection officers is taken into consideration. 
The privacy of the examination in nowise prevents the applicants from telling 
the truth, though it may deprive them of the means of knowing what steps to 
take to deceive the officers and defeat the law by concealing or misrepresenting 
the facts. Not infrequently in proceedings before United States commissioners 
Chinese persons have been rebuked for endeavoring to prompt witnesses as to 
what they should say. It seems reasonable, therefore, and not inconsistent with 
full justice to such applicants that their primary examination should be con¬ 
ducted only in the presence of those persons in whose honesty the examining 
officer can depend. There is nothing, however, to prevent such applicants from 
having as many witnesses as they choose to summon. 

The denial of the right to make verbatim copies of the testimony in such 
cases is due to the fact, actually experienced by executive officers, that counsel 
would secure Chinese witnesses to make statements under oath that would, 
under the rule of mere preponderance of evidence, however incredible such evi¬ 
dence might appear, destroy the effect of any fact originally developed which 
might militate against the admission of the applicant. . As counsel can make 
notes of any material point, however, there seems to be no undue hardship, 
particularly as the full record is accessible to them when the appeal is noted 
at the port of arrival and before the Department in Washington. 

Rule 8 (18), judging from the italics again, is objected to because a decision 
is rendered by the officer in charge, formerly the collector of customs, and be¬ 
cause Chinese applicants refused by such officer must give written notice of an 
intent to appeal within two days thereafter. This, again, is the same limit 
of time fixed for appeals by any alien held at the port of arrival under the 
immigration laws from a decision of the local officers. Some period of time 
had to be fixed to avoid the discomforts, expense, and inconvenience of delay. 
It has not appeared that the limitation of time has resulted, practically, in the 
deprivation of such right in the case of any alien or Chinese person who desired 
to appeal. The record in such cases is usually brief enough to enable counsel 
to examine it in twenty minutes or half an hour at the utmost. It is simply 
a notice of appeal, which appeal does not have to be perfected for transmission 
to the Department sooner than three days after the notice has been given, and, 
as will be seen in rule 9, commented on in said article, further delay may be 
granted by the officer at the port of arrival for the consideration of new evi¬ 
dence. In practice such extensions of time frequently occur. These restric¬ 
tions as to time of appeal, however, have been found necessary in consequence 
of the repeated complaints of delay in maturing and finally deciding such cases. 
At this point the Department desires to state that the delays are caused much 
more frequently by delay of counsel for the Chinese persons than by tardiness 
of the adminisU-ative officers. The Department has frequently, at the instance 
of counsel, extended the time, even where cases were matured and in the hands 
of the Department for decision. 

Later on in Commissioner Wong’s article he refers to the fact that a Chinese 
student was detained in Canada several months awaiting admission, in connec¬ 
tion with which statement the foregoing should be considered, as well as the 
fact that after such delay the Chinese student referred to, as Mr. Wong says, 
was compelled to return to China to secure papers which conformed to the law 


of July 5, 1884. 

Objection is made also to rule 9, first, apparently, because the release or de¬ 
nial ot an appealing Chinaman is stayed until a “final decision is rendered by 
the Secretary.” It is not to be expected that such a Chinaman, adjudged by 
the local officer to he inadmissible, could be released during the consideration 
of his •ii)peal * nor can it be supposed that Mr. Wong thinks that he should be 
deported during such time. The ground of objection ^ere, therefore, is difficult 

to perceive. 


48 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


Comment has already been made upon the three-day limitation upon the date 
of furnishing evidence and completing the appeal for transmission to the De¬ 
partment, as well as of the additional time that may be granted for the investi¬ 
gation of new evidence. 

Objection seems also to be made to the words “ as are to be considered,” in 
reference to the proofs, affidavits, and statements, the apparent and ingenious 
idea of the writer being that the local.officer, by such language, was clothed 
with authority to determine how much of the evidence, etc., should be for¬ 
warded with the appeal. Perhaps this descriptive term, which relates to all the 
evidence bearing upon the cnse, is susceptible of such an interpretation by one 
who is seeking to prove that this Government and its officers wantonly disregard 
the principles of justice, but in practice no such interpretation is placed upon 
the term, and all the evidence in relation to each case appealed is forwarded 
with the case. 

For some reason which the Department is unable to perceive, and therefore 
can not answer, Mr. Wong apparently objects to the appeal being accompanied 
by the written views of the transmitting officer. 

The last objection to said rule is that it forbids the consideration of evidence 
which has not been the subject of investigation and report by the officer in 
charge. Again, it is difficult to see how this constitutes a denial of justice. Its 
adoption was due to the fact that after appeals were forwarded to the Depart¬ 
ment counsel would prepare and send a number of affidavits. Of course it was 
impossible, as most of these cases were primarily heard at points remote from 
Washington, to examine the affiants; so a delay was occasioned by the necessity 
of sending the affidavits back to the port of arrival for investigation and report. 
The purpose was to avoid this delay by having such affidavits and evidence 
submitted first to the officer at the port of arrival, in order that he might make 
an investigation and report thereon, forwarding the new evidence, with such 
report, to the Department for consideration in connection with the appeal to 
which it related. 

Passing by the unwarranted conclusions drawn from a mistaken interpreta¬ 
tion of these rules, the Department states in answer to the objections urged to 
rule 21 (7), because it places the burden of proof upon Chinese persons claim¬ 
ing the right to admission, and requires officers to give the benefit of the doubt 
in doubtful cases to the Government, that it is declaratory of recognized rules 
of evidence in such cases. 

Rule 23 (12) is objected to because it requires officers at the ports of arrival 
to retain the papers upon which Chinamen are admitted and because it declares 
that Chinese persons resident in the United States are exempt from arrest by 
reason of their occupation as members of the exempt classes. The reason for 
withholding the papers upon which Chinese persons gained admission was that 
such papers were fraudulently used by Chinese persons who could readily 
impose upon officers as the persons referred to in said papers. The possession 
of such papers, moreover, constituted no protection. They were what is known 
as “ section 6 certificates,” and did not authorize the holders thereof, after 
admission, to become laborers. The Geary Act expressly required the arrest 
of Chinese persons found laboring, unless such persons had certificates of 
residence issued to them under the provisions of said act. No officer can under¬ 
take to arrest Chinese persons lawfully in this country who are engaged in 
mercantile operations or while teaching or as students or while traveling 
through the country for curiosity or pleasure. They only arrest laborers 
found occupied as such without the evidence declared by law to be indispensable 
to their right to be so occupied while in the United States. The Department, 
of course, does not know where Mr. Wong secured his infoi-mation to the 
effect that any officious officer or other person can maliciously cause a China¬ 
man’s arrest simply because he is a Chinaman without a paper; nor does 
it know of any law which says either in terms or in substance to such a 
Chinaman, “ Now, stay in jail until you prove you are innocent or have a 
right to be here.” Arrested Chinamen are committed upon a warrant of a 
judicial officer, who is required to set an early date for a hearing of his c.ase, 
and after such hearing, if the decision is adverse to the Chinaman, he has, 
under the law, ten days within which to appeal from such decision. Inci¬ 
dentally attention may be called to the fact, as illustrative of the Govern¬ 
ment’s fair treatment to such Chinese persons, that whei-e the decision is favor¬ 
able to the Chinaman administrative officers have no right of appeal. 

Rule 28 (34) is objected to because it again merely declares what the law, 
as construed by the cdhrts, requires—that is, that the certificate must con- 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


49 


form in every particular as described in section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884. 
If the certificate is lacking in any detail, to that extent it is not a lawful cer¬ 
tificate, and administrative officers have no power to excuse the omission of 
any requirement of the law with whose enforcement they are charged. The 
ground of tlie last-mentioned objection seems to he that the vise by the United 
States consular officer upon an imperfect certificate should be sufficient to 
condone such omission, and that this Government can not in good faith repu¬ 
diate the action of its representatives, though such action be improperly taken. 
The act of July 5, 1884, in section 6, which relates to such certificates, expressly 
declares, however, that such paper, even when perfect in all details and duly 
visaed by the United States consular officer, shall be not conclusive, but only 
prima facie evidence of the right of the holder to land, and further provides 
that administrative officers may controvert it, thus forbidding the conclusion 
which Commissioner Wong contends for. The Department is not concerned to 
excuse, if excuse be necessary, the action of the legislative branch of the Gov¬ 
ernment, but it believes, and has repeatedly recommended, that the investiga¬ 
tion now required to be made of such certificates in the country where issued 
by United States consular officers stationed in such countries should be made 
by special officers detailed for that purpose solely, which officers should be 
accountable to this Department for the manner in which they discharge their 
duties. Such an arrangement, it is believed, would obviate those cases of 
undoubted hardship in which persons who were entitled to come to the United 
States have left China with imperfect certificates under the impression that 
such certificates were correct in form. Cases of this kind, however, are of 
comparatively rare occurrence and, while hard upon the individual Chinaman 
affected thereby, have proved of some value, at least, to those who were able 
to use them in illustration of sweeping charges of injustice against adminis¬ 
trative officers. In this connection attention is invited to the case of the one 
student referred to by Mr. Wong, who was compelled to return to China to 
get such a certificate as the laws of this country declare to be indispensable 
to the admission even of such Chinese persons as are expressly declared to be 
entitled to enter this country. 

Something is said, also, in the said article of the fact that the convention of 
1894 used the permissive term “ may,” rather than the mandatory word “ shall,” 
in regard to the i)resentation by members of the exempt classes of section fi 
certificates. This point has already been disposed of by the courts, which have 
heljd that such permissive term should not be construed as a repeal of the 
imperative language of the statute. 

Reference is made to the definition of the term “ student ” by the Solicitor 
of the Treasury (Rule 36), and, while the writer of the article disclaims any 
purpose to question such definition, yet it is plainly his design to show that it 
is an unjust restriction of the student class. This definition, however, resulted 
from the broad interpretation of the word “ student ” held by many persons, 
both Chinese and American, that a student is anybody who studies, and that 
any Chinese laborer could gain admission to the United States if he would 
devote some portion of his time to attendance at the mission schools. Such an 
interpretation, of course, made the law nugatory, and therefore the definition 
referred to was adopted upon the recommendation of the Solicitor of the 
Treasury Department. The same remarks api)ly to the class of teachers, be¬ 
cause, in the sense of the exclusion laws, it would be folly to assume that every 
person who teaches anything is a teacher and may enter this country as such, 
irrespective of the means by which he gains his support. 

It may not be out of place to direct attention to the fact that these regula¬ 
tions were recently attacked before the Supreme Court in the case of the United 
States V. Sing Tuck et al. (194 U. S., 161). Mr. Justice Holmes, in delivering 
the opinion of the court, used the following language: 

“ But it is said that if, under any circumstances, the question of citizenship 
could be left to the final decision of an executive officer, the Chinese Regula¬ 
tions made under the statutes by the Department of Commerce and Labor are 
such that they do not allow a citizen due process of law, and the same argument 
is urged in favor of the right to decline to take any part in such proceedings 
from the outset. The rules objected to re(iuire the officer to prevent communica¬ 
tion with the r)artles other than by*officials under his control, and- to have them 
examined promptly tonching their right to admission. The examination is 
to be apart from the public, in the i)resence of the Government officials and such 
witnesses only as the examining officer shall designate. This last is the pro¬ 
vision especially stigmatized. It is said that the parties are allowed to produce 

H. Doc. 847, 59-1-4 

... . ,. ' - . 



50 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


only such witnesses as are designated by the officer. But that is a plain per¬ 
version of the meaning of the words. If the witnesses referred to are not 
merely witnesses to the examination, if they are witnesses in the cause, still the 
provision only excludes such witnesses, at the discretion of the officer, pending 
the examination of the party concerned—a natural precaution in this class of 
cases, the reasonableness of which does not need to be explained. It is common 
in ordinary trials. No right is given to the officer to exercise any control or 
choice as to the witnesses to be heard, and no such choice was attempted in 
fact. On the contrary, the parties were told that if they could produce two 
witnesses who knew that they had the right to enter, their testimony would be 
taken and carefully considered, and various other attempts were made to in¬ 
duce the suggestion of any evidence or help to establish the parties’ case, but 
they stood mute. The separate examination is another reasonable precaution, 
and it is required to take place promptly to avoid the hardship of a long deten¬ 
tion. In case of appeal counsel are permitted to examine the evidence (Rule 7), 
and it is implied that new evidence, briefs, affidavits, and statements may be 
submitted, all of which can be forwarded with the appeal.” 

The countless instances of imposture, the absence of an appreciation of the 
obligation of an oath upon the part of some of the witnesses, the transfer of 
genuine papers and the fabrication of fraudulent ones, the abundant funds at 
the disposal of those who are interested in securing the admission of Chinese, 
the palpably false claims to birth in the United States, the absurd pretensions 
to a mercantile status of members of firms whose total business is out of all 
proportion to the number of alleged partners, the ingenious devices of counsel 
in some instances, and the numerous other obstacles to a just and effective 
enforcement of the law with which the Department and its officers are contin¬ 
ually confronted are all a part of the story, a complete knowledge of which is 
necessary to an intelligent understanding of what may appear to the casual 
observer as unjust or unnecessarily rigorous action in the administration of 
the Chinese-exclusion laws. 

The Department believes, however, that our citizens would prefer rather to 
rely upon the honor and fair play which should characterize those who have 
been selected to enforce the laws rather than upon declarations, from whatever 
source, that such officers would maliciously and wantonly abuse the authority 
granted them by this free Government to defeat the right of the humblest alien. 

This Department was established to “ foster, promote, and develop the foreign 
and domestic commerce * ♦ * of the United States.” To this end certain 

bureaus were transferred to its jurisdiction and certain new bureaus were pro¬ 
vided for. Its officials fully realize this paramount purpose and in its adminis¬ 
tration they have tried to make substantial progress toward that great end. It 
is confident that a thorough and impartial investigation of the record would 
disclose the fact that, while energetically enforcing the laws under which it 
operates, it has been guided always by the desire to do full and ample justice 
and to conserve the rights of every individual, whether citizen or alien, coming 
within the scope of its jurisdiction. 

If the foregoing letter, which, though somewhat elaborate, is yet insufficient 
to lay the whole case before you, is in any respect unsatisfactory, and if you 
will indicate the respect in which it fails to answer any doubt in your mind, 
the Department will be glad to supply further information. 

Very truly, yours. 


Geo. B. Cortelyou, Secretary. 


The Bureau’s attitude with regard to the then existing regulations 
is thus stated in the annual report of the Commissioner-General for 
1905 (p. 86) : 


The Bureau therefore desires to express its unqualified disapproval of 
changes in existing regulations, not because it is opposed to extending every 
facility to Chinese persons, native born or alien, who are entitled to enter the 
United States, to prove such right, but because it is convinced that such change 
will alfcrd a means of entry for those not entitled by law or treaty to come to or 
reside in this country, 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE EXEMPT CLASSES. 


As defined by treaty. Additions to. Certificate to be presented by; 
frauds connected with issue of; recommendation for abatement of 
frauds; reasons for recommendation. Section 6, merchants: Number 
applying, adrhitted, and rejected; palpably fraudulent character of; 
attention of immigration officials early called to; a recent case of impo¬ 
sition ; various illustrations generally, and of St. Louis P^air frauds. Stu¬ 
dents : Number applying, admitted, and rejected; illustrations of fraud. 
Teachers ; Number applying, admitted, and rejected. Travelers: Number 
applying, admitted, and rejected; illustration of fraud by. 

The exempt classes are thus described in Article II of the treaty of 
November 17, 1880 (22 Stat., p. 826) : 

Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, stu¬ 
dents, merchants, or for curiosity, * ♦ ♦ shall be allowed to go and come 

of their own free will and accord, etc. 

To complete the list of classes exempted from the exclusion laws 
there must be added to the above mentioned the following: Mer¬ 
chants domiciled in this country, and the wives and minor children 
of domiciled merchants; but, by reason of the very different condi¬ 
tions affecting the admission of such additional classes, they are con¬ 
sidered in separate chapters of this paper, viz. Chapter Y (p. 60) and 
Chapter VI (p. 67). 

By the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., p. 115), section 6, the certifi¬ 
cate to be presented by teachers, students, merchants, and travelers 
is described, provisions being included therein with regard to mer¬ 
chants and travelers additional to those relating to teachers and 
students. 

The construction which has been placed upon these provisions of 
treaty and law is full}^ discussed in the chapter on “ regulations,” 
in the consideration of rule 1 (see p. 25), and also on page 80, annual 
report, 1905. A consideration of the facts presented there is invited 
at this point, for it is important to a proper understanding of the 
matter which follows. 

In this chapter the four occupations, the followers of which are 
exempt from the excluding provisions of law, will be taken up in the 
order of their importance from the standpoint of effective adminis¬ 
tration, after having covered, first of all, the general subject of the 
issuance of the certificates prescribed by section 6 of the act of July 
5, 1884, commonly called “ Section 6 certificates,” and so alluded to 
hereinafter, and the frauds, in a, general way, which are practiced in 
connection thereAvith. 

CONSULAR INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATES. 

The enforcement of the exclusion laws had not long been in the 
hands of the Bureau of Immigration before the vast extent of this 
field for the perpetration of fraud was realized (see p. 51, An. Rep. 
Com. Gen., 1901). In the second annual report issued after the 

61 


52 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


transfer of the enforcement of the laws to said Bureau, and the first 
made by the present incumbent of the office of Commissioner-General 
of Immigration, the following recommendation was submitted for the 
consideration of Congress: 

The Bureau has to recommend further that competent officers be appointed 
for service in the enforcement of these laws in China, both at Hongkong and 
at Canton. At present the facts alleged in their certificates by Chinese applicants 
for admission to this country are investigated by the United States consuls at 
the ports of foreign departure. Such investigations, however, require an expen¬ 
diture of time and care which the said officers can not always give. This 
is shown by the almost invariable coincidence in date of issue of such certifi¬ 
cates by the Chinese Government official designated for that duty and the vise 
of the United States consul. This coincidence is the more remarkable, as the 
residence of the Chinese person holding the certificate is sometimes several 
days distant from the consular port. It also appears that the testimony of 
the Chinese themselves that the investigation required by law to be made by the 
consul is made at times by such consul’s Chinese servant or office employee. 
A verification thus made of the truth of the allegations of Chinese persons en¬ 
deavoring to establish a right to enter this country would seem to be of little 
practical value. 

On the other hand, the use of experienced and trusted officers of this service 
would make the provision of law referred to of great practical value in the de¬ 
tection of fraudulent cases where the evidence of fraud is easily obtainable, at 
the home of the applicant. (An. Rep. Com. Gen., 1902, pp. 80-81.) 

That recommendation has been repeated with increased earnestness 
in each report since submitted (An. Kepts. Com. Gen., 1903, p. 108; 
1904, pp. 143-144; 1905, pp. 97-98), the reasons for such recommenda¬ 
tion being stated clearly, but necessarily in a brief manner. Those 
reasons will here be given in more detail, with a few illustrations to 
show their force. 

This power to vise section 6 certificates is one of the most important 
functions connected with the enforcement of the laws; yet it is placed 
in the hands of officers not connected with or responsible to the 
Bureau of Immigration, but under the control of and directly re¬ 
sponsible to the Department of State. Their connection with that 
Department, moreover, is an anomaly in still another way: As United 
States consuls it is their business to encourage commercial relations 
between the particular vicinity in which they are located and this 
country; they must, therefore, endeavor to keep on the most amicable 
terms with the viceroys and taotai of China there stationed, and to 
scrutinize closely and investigate every statement made by such 
Chinese officials in section 6 certificates, as the law requires shall be 
done, before viseing such papers, quite possibly would lead to strained 
relations; so that, even though the consul is an officer of the highest 
integrity, as many of them doubtless are, his position is one of diffi¬ 
culty and embarrassment when it comes to deciding between the im¬ 
portance of these several duties laid upon him by the law. 

COOLIES CERTIFIED AS MERCHANTS. 

Whether from the above cause or from dishonesty on the part of 
consular officials, or both, the fact is that hundreds of certificates 
have been issued by the Chinese officials and viseed by American con¬ 
sular officers for Chinese persons so palpably coolies that it is difficult 
to conceive that anyone even glancing at them casually should have 
taken them for members of any other class. Although not confined 
strictly to that class, this has been more practically true of the alleged 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


53 


merchants applying for admission on section 6 certificates, as is 
shown under the subheading “ Merchants.” During the past three 
fiscal years (separate statistics for prior periods not being available, 
it having been the practice to keep the records of all admissible classes 
together) there were issued and viseed in China 1,245 section 6 cer¬ 
tificates. Of these, 277, or 22 per cent, were found, upon inspection 
and examination of the applicants, to have been placed in the hands 
of persons who, either by their unmistakable personal appearance or 
by the statements made by them under examination, were obviously 
not members of the exempt classes, but laborers, and whose admission 
would, therefore, have been a direct violation of the treaty and laws. 
Moreover, it is confidently believed that many, perhaps a majority, 
of the remaining 968 were also laborers, but had been so carefully 
coached and prepared beforehand that it was not possible to con¬ 
trovert ” the prima facie evidence of their certificates, and whose 
admission, therefore, was unavoidable. Under the subheads herein¬ 
after given some specific cases of rejection of such persons, palpably 
coolies, will be alluded to. (See pp. 54, 57.) 

CONSULAR VIS^: SUBJECT TO ABUSE. 

With the removal of several consular officers formerly stationed 
in southern China and the issuance to consuls on June 26, 1905, 
of very emphatic instructions from the State Department (see State 
Dept. Circular of June 26, 1905, Bu. Im. file No. 14158 C), the num¬ 
ber of applicants presenting section 6 certificates has been mate¬ 
rially reduced, and the Chinese have been compelled to resort to 
other subterfuges to effect their unlawful practices. (See chapter on 
“Natives,” p. 91.) The possibility of a recurrence of the extensive 
evil still exists, however. (Bu. Im. file No. 14157 C.) As an illus¬ 
tration of how thoroughly alive the Chinese and their confederates 
are to this situation, the following letter, addressed on July 20, 1905, 
to the Commissioner-General by the chief interpreter at San Fran¬ 
cisco, is quoted: 

Complying with your request to furnish you in writing what I have stated 
to you verbally, certain positive information bearing on the important matter 
of issuing section 6 certificates in China, in order that you may transmit the 
same to our President, I have the honor now to state that about three months 
ago a man by the name of Runner, who understands a few words of Chinese 
and who was for a while a newspaper man in San Francisco, went over to 
Hongkong as the representative of certain Chinese in San Francisco, with the 
one purpose of connecting himself in some way with the American consulate 
in Canton, either as vice-consul, interpreter, or adviser of some sort, in order 
to secure the monopoly of issuing section 6 certificates' to Chinese not entitled 
to them. His passage to China was paid by certain Chinese in San Francisco, 
as well as his present support in China, in return for which he was to secure 
section 6 papers—on a small scale at first, hut increasingly numerous later 
on. It might seem strange to you if I tell you that this information was 
conveyed to me in the first place by a prominent Chinese merchant; but 
the reason given by him makes his attitude perfectly clear, namely, that he 
appreciates the harm that this man will bring to bona fide merchants. As far 
as this Mr. Runner’s going to China is concerned, I can vouch for the state¬ 
ment that he did go, as I saw him leave San Francisco on a boat bound for 
China. The importance of this information is at least twofold. The Chinese 
merchants here simply see one harmful feature to Mr. Runner’s attempt(‘d 
monopoly, but to us there is another side to it, namely, the harm that will 
come to our administration and to our country generally. There is only one 
thing to do to prevent this disaster, and that is to advise especially Consul- 


54 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSTON LAWS. 


General Lay not to employ or countenance this gentleman in any way. And 
even this has to be done very carefully, as the Chinaman or Chinamen con¬ 
nected with the consulate may not be altogether free from this entanglement. 
Bunner was in Washington a month or two before leaving here for China, 
and while there enlisted the aid of some quite iiitliieiitial people. To have 
section 6 certificates honored upon presentation on this side of the Pacific 
without examination or questioning is a feature that Bunner is very much 
alive to, and a condition that he desired and seems to have in a measure antici¬ 
pated, how I can not say. 

Bunner I should judge to be a man about 45 years old, about 5 feet 7 
tall, sharp featured, with hair dark and inclined to be curly, wearing eye¬ 
glasses usually with a fine chain attached to them and hung over one ear, and 
is slightly deaf. 

He may have some difficulty in securing the situation and controlling it for 
gain, but that he is trying for it and with the financial aid of certain Chinese 
there is no doubt, as the information I have secured concerning it is thor¬ 
oughly reliable. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 12811 and 14232 C.) 

The matter above alluded to was confirmed in a conversation which 
took place on November 3, 1905, between the Commissioner-General 
of Immigration and the gentleman referred to in the chapter on 

“Natives” (pp.-) and in the chapter on the boycott (p.-). 

That gentleman stated, in the course of the conversation, that Mr. 
Bunner, to his personal knowledge, called at the consulate-general 
at Canton and endeavored in every way possible to induce the United 
States consul-general to aid him in his plans for bringing coolies 
to the United States as section 6 merchants, but every overture made 
by him was indignantly rejected. 

TEAFFIC IN CERTIFICATES. 

The said conversation also developed the fact that the gentleman, 
who had been so situated in China as to gain inside information, was 
able to confirm the opinion of the Bureau and of the Commissioner- 
General, as expressed in his several annual reports with regard to the 
subject of the issuance and vise of section 6, certificates in China; 
and also in the development of additional evidence, consisting of this 
gentleman’s statements, that these certificates had been the subject 
of regular sale in Canton for a long time, and that hundreds of 
coolies had been furnished with them regularly, and also in connec¬ 
tion with the alleged proposed exhibits at the St. Louis fair. He 
expressed the view that the recommendations of the Commissioner- 
General, with regard to placing immigration officials in China to 
investigate and report upon the cases of exempts, would probably be 
the best means of obviating the evils experienced in the past, as such 
officials would not only be directly responsible to the Bureau for a 
proper discharge of their duties, but would be able to devote their 
entire personal attention to the making of investigations, and would 
have at their disposal funds to be expended for that legitimate ob¬ 
ject, the consular officers being, as a rule, quite completely occupied 
with other matters, and having no such funds at their disposal. 

The following extract from the testimony of a Chinaman appre¬ 
hended on February 6, 1906, while smuggling into the United States 
at El Paso, Tex., is of interest, as alluding to conditions which 
formerly prevailed in Canton: 

Q. Have you ever attempted to enter the United States at any port other 
than El Paso?—A. No; this is the first time; but in K. S. 27 my father had 
procured me a section 6 certificate purporting to be traveling for curiosity in 




ENFOEC!EMIiNT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


55 


the United States, but at that time I could not get away, and later I went to 
iSrexico. At the time he procured this sec-ion d certificate for me it was my 
inteutiou to apply for admission at the port of San Francisco. 

Q. From whom did your father procure this section d certificate?—A. I do 
not know from what official he got this certificate. In Canton city, China, 
at that time, a great many people secured certificates and many of them came, 
but'some did not come. 

Q. What did it cost your father to procure this certificate for you?—A. I 
do not know exactly how much; but it cost him a hundred and some odd dol¬ 
lars. Soon after the certificate was secured that official’s term was expired, and 
that was the reason why I could not come. 

Q. When your father procured that section d certificate for you, was it your 
honest intention to come to the United States and travel for curiosity, or did 
you intend to come here under the guise of a tourist and, after having secured 
admission, to engage in manual labor?—A. At that time it was my bona fide 
intention to come to the United States in accordance with that certificate, 
because my father was to come here to San Francisco to be a president of one 
of the societies there, and I was to come over with him as his personal attend¬ 
ant, or secretary. 

Q. What was your occupation in China?—A. Student. 

Q. Did you ever perform any manual labor in China?—A. No. 

Q. Was it your intention, in the event you secured admission to the United 
States, to perform manual labor in the United States?—A. Yes; that must be 
the case; because if I didn’t work I probably could not get anything to eat. 

Q. Then, you did not seek admission to the United States for the purpose of 
pursuing some study in the United States that you could not follow in China?— 
A. No. 

SECTION 6 “ MERCHANTS.” 

It is this class, and the next one discussed, “ Students,” the “ harsh 
treatment ” of which it was at first claimed resulted in the boycott. 
That many so-called “ merchants ” snjiplied with section 6 certificates 
have been rejected is not denied; in fact, the only cause for regret 
connected with the matter, from the standpoint of an efficient enforce¬ 
ment of the laws, consists in the fact that it was not possible to con¬ 
trovert some certificates held by applicants who were undoubtedly 
coolies. That any real merchant has been refused admission under 
a properly issued and viseed certificate has not been shown by any 
one of the complainants, and it is confidently believed can not be 
shown. 

Out of a total of 869 section 6 “ merchants ” who applied for ad¬ 
mission during the fiscal years 1903, 1904, and 1905 (figures for this 
class of the exempts not being available in separate form for the pre¬ 
ceding years), it was necessary to reject 234, or about 27 per cent, 
and it is believed, from a knowledge of the contents of cases of this 
character which came before the Bureau in connection with appeals, 
but in which it was not possible to directly controvert the certificates, 
that quite possibly more than 50 per cent of such applicants were not 
what they professed to be and what their certificates alleged they 
were. Many of these so-called merchants, whose certificates showed 
them to be the owners of interests in large mercantile houses of 
China, varying in amounts from $500 to $20,000 or more, upon ar¬ 
rival at the ports of this country were found to be dressed in the 
ordinary oiled silk jerkin and trousers worn by the cooly class (al¬ 
though in a number of instances the photographs attached to their 
certificates represented them dressed in the sumptuous silken robes 
of the high-caste Chinamen, borrowed from the photographer at the 
time of having the picture made), accompanied b;^ baggage made up 
of a few other such plain articles of clothing, their faces seared and 


56 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHlNESE-EXCLtrSlON LAWS. 


wrinkled from exposure to the elements, their hands and shoulders 
hard and calloused, and their legs below the knee covered with scars, 
the remains of “ tropical ulcers ’^with which the rice plantation cooly 
is frequently afflicted. 

KINDS OF LABORERS THAT POSE AS MERCHANTS. 

This “ section 6 certificate ” road has been traveled by two kinds of 
Chinese laborers, viz, the raw cooly fresh from the rice plantations or 
the cities of southern China, and the laborer who has once resided in 
this country and on one ground or another has been refused readmis¬ 
sion after a visit to China, this latter fact being proved by the 
involuntary admissions of some applicants that they are acquainted 
with the language and customs and certain localities of this country. 
The immigration officials, after having the Chinese-exclusion laws 
placed in their charge, Avere not long in concluding that their abili¬ 
ties would be taxed to the utmost to protect the laAv at this point. 
(See report of inspector in charge, San Francisco, dated June 8, 
1901—Bu. Im. file No. 3290 C.) Their efforts have been continuous. 
Avith varying success, and the gi'eatest vigilance Avill continue to be 
necessary so long as the present anomalous and unsatisfactory 
arrangement for the viseing of certificates is in force. 

A CONSULAR INVESTIGATION OF A “ MERCHANT.” 

This is quite forcefully evidenced by a case Avhich recently arose at 
the port of San Diego, Cal. Tavo Chinese arriA^ed at that port dur¬ 
ing the present month, fortified Avith papers purporting to be section 
6 certificates issued (not viseed), but actually issued by the American 
consul at Ensenada, Mexico, shoAving them to be merchants of stand¬ 
ing in that place. As they were thought by their personal appear¬ 
ance to be laborers, the cases Avere carefully investigated, although 
the applicants might quite properly have been refused admission 
simply on the ground that the “ certificates ” Avere not issued by the 
Chinese GoAwnment (of Avhich they claimed to be subjects), as re¬ 
quired by the statute. The result of the investigation was that it Avas 
shoAvn that the men had been engaged in Ensenada in the occupation 
of a cook and gardener, respectively, and the consul admitted that he 
had issued the certificates upon the assurance of a citizen of Ensenada, 
whom he regarded as responsible. The applicants Avere, of course, 
rejected and returned to Mexico, although they employed counsel and 
endeavored on appeal to the Department to induce it to land them, as 
they “ had done everything possible to comply with the law.” (Bu. 
Im. file Nos. 14591 and 14592 C.) 

Examples could be multiplied to such an extent as to carry this 
chapter beyond all reasonable bounds, as the files of the Bureau are 
filled with cases that have reached the Department on appeal from 
excluding decisions rendered at ports of entry (for these coolies, like 
all others endeavoring to land in the United States, do not lack 
“ friends ” abundantly supplied with the means to exhaust every line 
of effort to accomplish their purpose) ; but the different cases vary 
only in the manner or the degree in which vigilant inquiry brought 
about a disclosure of their fraudulent character, so that no useful 
purpose could be served by quoting them in extenso. A few file 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


57 


numbers will be inserted for convenience of reference, if at any time 
required: Department decisions Nos. 8, 17, 24, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 
59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 73, 80, and 81; Bu. Im. file Nos. 12170, 12173, 
12220, 12221, 12262, 12607, 12643, 12644, 12646, 12647, 12648, 12649, 
12650, 12652, 12653, 12654, 12657, 12658, 12660, 12666, 12667, 12668, 
12699, 12700, 12787, 12788, 12791, 12792, 12796, and 13151 C. 

A TYPICAL CASE. 

In the chapter on “Regulations” (p. 43) a letter from the consul- 
general at Hongkong is quoted, showing how the St. Louis fair was 
made the pretext for bringing to the ports of this country numbers 
of coolies certified as section 6 merchants. Doubtless many others 
would have attempted to work the same plan but for the fact that 
it was discovered and “ nipped in the bud.” A number of such 
alleged merchants did reach San Francisco, however. A typical case 
is that of Cheang Kwan Yin (Bu. Im. file No. 12799 C), who arrived 
on July 2, 1904, submitting a certificate issued by the representative 
of the Chinese Government and viseed by the consular officer of the 
United States at Canton, reciting that he was the owner of a $5,000 
interest in a firm of tea merchants of that city, cajhtalized at $30,000. 
The Chinaman was, to all appearances, a cooly; he was without 
means; his hands and feet were hard and calloused and his legs sun- 
l)urned; he could not evince any intelligent knowledge of the tea 
business, such as the names and prices of the different brands; and 
he presented a “ stock certificate in the Quong Yij) Company,” said 
to be about to open an exhibit at the World’s Fair, but known to the 
Department as a fictitious firm, under the pretext of membership in 
which coolies would seek admission; and he was accompanied by 16 
other coolies, possessed of similar “ section 6 ” and stock certificates. 
(See Bu. Im. file Nos. 12785, 12786, 12790, 12793, 12794, 12795, 12797, 
12798, and 12800 4 C. See also No. 11463 C and 10661 C.) 

ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 

With regard to the Chinese students who apply for admission to 
this country, and concerning whose cases there has been such extensive 
newspa])er comment, it is interesting to know that of 128 such persons 
applying for admission to this country during the fiscal years 1903, 
1904, and 1905 1)6 were admitted and’12 were denied landing. Sev¬ 
eral of those denied were rejected under the provisions of law relating 
to all aliens found afflicted with loathsome or dangerous contagious 
diseases, and the remainder were refused admission on grounds sim¬ 
ilar to those existing in the much more numerous cases of alleged riier- 
chants, viz, because their own testimony and personal appearance 
showed that the certificates were fraudulent. 

There are several reasons why the student claim has not been used 
as extensively as the merchant claim in the endeavor to defeat the 
laws. In the first place, as is pointed out in the chapter on “ Regula¬ 
tions ” (p. 33), it became necessary, at an early stage of the enforce¬ 
ment of the law, to define and restrict the term “student;” and, in 
the second place, it requires a Chinaman of much more intelligence 
to pose as a student than as a merchant. Cases are not lacking, how¬ 
ever of violations and attempted violations of law by such means. 


58 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


For instance, on September 17, 1904, there arrived at the port of 
Malone, N. Y., one Lo Chung Kwang, who presented a section 6 
certificate, issued and viseed at Shanghai, showing him to be a 
student intending to enter a school at Cleveland, Ohio, and to pursue 
later “ special studies in chemistry, spending eight or ten years in the 
schools of the United States.” Upon examination this boy stated that 
he intended to go to New York City, where he would spend probably 
a year, and would then proceed to Cleveland, Ohio; that he intended 
to live with an uncle in Cleveland, by which uncle his schooling 
would be paid; that as soon as he finished a course in English and 
chemistry he intended to enter his uncle’s laundry as a laborer, and 
that he had no intention of ever returning to China. (Bu. Im. file 
No. 13154 C.) 

On December 17, 1905, there arrived at San Francisco one Jun 
Quoon, who was accompanied by a Chinese woman supposed to be 
his wife, and who claimed to be an American citizen by birth, and 
therefore entitled not only to enter himself, but to liave his wife 
landed with him. The suspicion of the immigration officials being 
excited, this Chinaman was subjected to a searching cross-examina¬ 
tion, under which he broke down and admitted that he had several 
years previously entered the United States at the port of San Fran¬ 
cisco on a certificate as a student—which assertion was verified by 
recourse to the San Francisco office records—and that about a nronth 
after being landed he had gone to work in a laundry, in which occu¬ 
pation he had continued up to the time of his departure for China 
on the visit from which then returning. (Bu. Im. file No. 14512 C.) 

In a number of instances Chinese have been found in this country 
working in laundries or restaurants who, upon examination, asserted 
that they had been admitted to the United States as students, and in 
some of these cases the courts have ordered the deportation of such 
Chinamen. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 11625, 13174, and 13526 C.) 

TEACHERS. 

So far as the records of the Bureau of Immigration show, no China¬ 
man has ever gained unlawful admission to this country as a teacher. 
This is probably due to the fact that only a person of advanced edu¬ 
cation in the Chinese classics could successfully assume the role, it 
being an easy matter to determine by a few direct questions Avhether 
a Chinaman is capable of filling such a position, and the Chinese 
who attempt to evade our laws do not, as a rule, belong to the edu¬ 
cated classes. 

During the three fiscal years 1903, 1904, and 1905 only 39 Chinese 
persons applied for admission as of this class, and out of that number 
it was necessary to reject only three. 

TRAVELERS. 

This designation, the broadest of the four mentioned in the treaty 
and laws, for some reason which is not clearly understood, has not 
been extensively employed in violating the laws of this country, but 
a limited number of such violations ever having come to the attention 
of the Bureau of Immigration. (See Bu. Im. file Nos. 12674 and 
13152 C.) 



ENFOKCEMENT OF CHTNESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


59 


During the three years above mentioned only 53 Chinese claiming 
to be travelers applied for admission at the ports of this country, 
and out of that number 5 were rejected. 

(See also, as to exempts in general, Senate Report No. 776 (part 2), 
Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 177, note, 271-274 and 
314-318; as to merchants, id., pp. 318-319; and as to students, id., 
pp. 126-127, 130-132, 159, note, and 275-276.) 

As a recent illustration of the facility with which the guise of a 
traveler may be assumed to defeat the purposes of the exclusion laws, 
the following case is cited: On February 22, 1906, there arrived at 
Sumas, Wash., two Chinamen who presented section 6 certificates 
issued to them two years previously by the Chinese customs official at 
Canton, and viseed by the then American consul-general at said place, 
describing them as travelers for curiosity or pleasure. These men 
were judged by the inspector in charge, from their personal appear¬ 
ance and dress, not to be laborers. They answered all questions satis¬ 
factorily, and did not in any manner controvert the prima facie evi¬ 
dence constituted by their certificates. They did assert that the cer 
tificates cost them $60 apiece, paid through some of their friends, and 
their testimony tended to show that if any investigation was made it 
was conducted after the certificates had been issued. The inspector 
in charge telegraphed for instructions as to whether the certificates 
should be accepted, notwithstanding their age, and was advised that 
he would have to admit the Chinamen unless the certificates were 
controverted. * The Chinamen claimed that they would visit Seattle 
and Portland for a few days, enroute to San Francisco, and that upon 
arrival at the last-named city they would stay with friends, promi¬ 
nent Chinese business men. 

The inspector in charge requested the privilege of photographing 
them, and took the precaution to furnish the officers located at Seattle, 
Portland, and San Francisco with information concerning the admis¬ 
sion of the applicants and their stated intentions. The result was 
that it was learned that the Chinamen did not stop over in either 
Seattle or Portland, but proceeded to San Francisco by the first 
available through train. Inquiry of the business men with whom 
they claimed that they would stop in San Francisco, developed the 
fact that the Chinamen were wholly unknown to such parties, and, 
although careful inquiry was made in Chinatown, and a sharp look¬ 
out kept for the Chinamen, no trace of them was ever found. Doubt¬ 
less they immediately took up a residence in the densely populated 
section of Chinatown, and proceeded to engage in some laboring pur¬ 
suit. (Bu. Im. file No. 11463 C and 12674 C.) 


CHAPTER V. 
DOMICILED MERCHANTS. 


General description. Engagement in smuggling and other frauds 
against the Government, and in gambling and lottery enterprises. In¬ 
terference with cases against laborers. Citation of specific cases in which 
firms have been declared nonmercantile. Number of “ domiciled ” mer¬ 
chants admitted and rejected. Two recent illustrations of fraud. 

There will be found in another part of this paper (chapter entitled 
“Regulations,” p. 23), under the discussion of rules 29 and 30, a 
description of the abuses which led to the adoption of such rules, 
and it will not be necessary to repeat those remarks in this connection. 

The subject of the so-called domiciled merchant very early engaged 
the attention of administrative officers, and has always been a source 
of difficulty and embarrassment in the endeavor to properly enforce 
the exclusion laws, and thereby prevent the entry to or residence in 
this country of Chinese laborers, and at the same time administer no 
injustice toward the real merchant living in the Unifed States and 
conducting a bona fide business as such. The following is copied 
from the annual report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration 
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1901 (p. 51) : 

Of those expressly mentioned among the excepted classes there is perhaps 
more difficulty with such as claim to be merchants than with the others. Their 
extravagant and apparently improbable claims to large interests in mercantile 
houses in China are hard to reconcile with their frequent lack of money or 
apparent provision of means for their support here. Of the resident merchants, 
moreover, who seek readmission, much the same statement may be made. 
Every conceivable device of ingenuity is used to establish a mercantile status. 
Certificates alleging such status are signed often as a mere matter of accommo¬ 
dation by the white witnesses required by the law, and a nebulous interest 
in alleged mercantile firms with trivial supplies on hand and numerous part¬ 
ners, all possessing interests of .$1,000 each or multiples thereof, lead to the 
inevitable conclusion that unless the law is amended by requiring more spe¬ 
cific evidence, or the term “ merchant ” is defined more narrowly, the opening 
made by this exception is wide enough to let in almost any adult Chinaman. 

LARGE MEMBERSHIP OF SMALL COMPANIES. 

There are, of course, some firms in this country who have a right 
to claim a mercantile status; but there are so many, especially in the 
more sparsely settled sections, that are not entitled to be so considered 
that it may be safely stated that a majority of such firms, if regarded 
from the standpoint of the status of each individual alleged to be a 
member thereof, are not entitled to the benefit of the statutes except¬ 
ing from the exclusion laws Chinese merchants. These firms often 
carry only the smallest stocks of Chinese and American goods, and 
have a membership out of all proportion to the business which could 
possibly be conducted on the basis of such stock. Such a firm, carry- 
ing goods which would not aggregate at any one time during the 

60 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


61 


year more than $1,000 in value, will have a membership of from 10 
to 30 persons, each said to be a member to the extent of having $500 
or $1,000 invested, and giving his entire time to the conduct of the 
business; and at any time when such firm is visited no more than two 
or three of the alleged members will be found at work in the store. 

So many cases could be cited in substantiation of this statement 
that even a brief description of them would carry this paper beyond 
all reasonable bounds. The purposes for which these firms are organ¬ 
ized are so obvious as to hardly require comment. They are usually 
conducted and participated in by members of some particular clan 
or family. The most of the members will be engaged in manual 
labor, usually that of laundrymen, except when apprehended for trial 
on the ground of unlawful residence in this country, or Avhen desir¬ 
ing to visit China and obtain readmission to the United States, when 
they become, ostensiblyj active members of the firm. 

TRADE IN COOLIES. 

It has also been demonstrated in many instances that Chinese firms 
in this country are used, not only in the manner above indicated for 
the purpose of covering the unlawful return to this country of per¬ 
sons already illegally here, but for the purpose of importing laborers 
from China under the guise of membership therein; in fact, the ex¬ 
perience of administrative officers has led them to believe that the 
chief business of many of these so-called “ mercantile houses ” is the 
importation of coolies, from which trade a much larger profit can l)e 
derived than by importing Chinese merchandise. The following 
is copied from page 96 of the Annual Report of the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration for 1905, from a letter received from the in¬ 
spector in charge of the district of Texas, with headquarters at El 
Paso: 

In view of recent criticism as to the attitude of immis^ration officials toward 
members of the exempt classes, attention is called to the fact that the great 
majority of those claiming to be exempts are not such in fact; at least such 
is the case at this station. It is true that there are a number of alleged mercan¬ 
tile establishments whose members are ever ready to file complaints as to their 
ill treatment by immigration officials. With one or two exceptions, however, 
it can safely be said that the sole occupation of such firms in El Paso consists 
of selling opium to members of their own race and unfortunate Americans who 
have been seduced into the habit, conducting gambling establishments, and 
dealing in coolies at a profit of about $200 on each one placed in the United 

^ til tGS 

inasmuch as all Chinese persons in El Paso are engaged directly or indirectly 
in the smuggling of coolies, it is not seen how even those claiming to belong to 
the exempt classes can be allowed to secrete coolies in their establishments 
without subjecting themselves to “domiciliary” visits by inspectors. To hold 
to the contrary would be placing a premium upon smuggling and herding coolies 
in El Paso by every Chinese person or firm, of any class, owning or renting any 
kind of an establishment. 

The conditions existing in El Paso, as above indicated, while per¬ 
haps more general there than in interior localities, are by no means 
confined to such border towns. In fact, investigations have shown 
time and again that the chief business of these mercantile houses is 
the conduct of gambling, lottery, and opium-smoking institutions, in 
addition to their trade in Chinese coolies. 


62 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


IMPORTING PROSTITUTES. 

V 

Another nefarious practice which has been detected, although ap¬ 
parently not as extensively engaged in by the alleged domiciled 
merchant as by the alleged native, is the importation of women 
from China for sale as slaves to houses of prostitution in this country. 
A notable case of this character is one which is at the present writing 
^lending at one of the Pacific ports, in which a prominent merchant 
returned to this country after a visit to his native land accom]3anied by 
a woman whom he claimed was his wife. He was not able to establish 
his marriage to this woman, and while the latter was being held 
pending the submission by the merchant of further evidence, she 
made a confession to the effect that she had never been married to 
him, but that he had purchased her from a house of ill fame in China, 
and had told her that he intended to bring her to the United States 
where he would sell her for enough money to pay for the smuggling 
of his brother into this country, and when he and his brother had 
accumulated more money they would repurchase her; also, that the 
said merchant had three wives, all living, in China. This confession 
was corroborated by an investigation in China, conducted by the 
vice-consul-general at Canton. (Bu. Im. No. 13830 C.) 

ESTABLISHED MERCHANTS ABET LAWBREAKERS. 

Another difficulty which grows out of the domiciled merchant 
proposition is the fact that the really intelligent and capable China¬ 
men who are usually at the head of these enterprises interfere when¬ 
ever the attempt is made to arrest some one of their clansmen found 
unlawfully in this country, by producing evidence to show that, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that such clansman had been found working 
in a laundry or a restaurant, he is a bona fide member of a mercantile 
firm, often succeeding, by persistence or by cumulative Chinese 
evidence, in satisfying judicial officers that such is really the fact. 
A case in point is that of two Chinamen arrested in January, 1904, 
in the Florida district, both of whom were found working in a 
laundry and having no evidence whatever in their possession to show 
that they were lawful residents of this country. When they were 
taken before a United States commissioner for trial, one Quan Yick 
Nam, one of the best known so-called merchants of New York City, 
appeared in court and testified that they were members of one of the 
firms conducted by him in the said city, and that they had been 
sent out into the country to collect bills due such firm. Quan Yick 
Nam was able to convince the United States Commissioner that he 
was thoroughly reliable, inasmuch as he had recommendations from 
persons of high standing, and his two countrymen were released on 
his testimony. They immediately returned to work in the laundry 
where they had been arrested. (Bu. Im. No. 11776 C.) 

In February, 1904, the corpse of a deceased Chinaman was dis¬ 
covered in a refrigerator car side-tracked at St. Louis. This cir¬ 
cumstance was investigated by Government officials, with the result 
that it was discovered, and later proved in court, that one Lam Chee, 
the proprietor of one of the largest mercantile houses in Chicago, 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


63 


had agreed with two cousins of the deceased Chinaman to land him 
m the United States for a money consideration. The plan followed 
was to place the Chinaman in a car at a point some miles north of 
Windsor, Ontario (opposite Detroit, Mich.), he being lowered 
through the aperature in the top of the car used for supplying it 
with ice, and the arrangement being to release him from the car 
at some point on the American side. Because of a severe snowstorm 
the movement of the car across the boundary was delayed, and the 
Chinaman thus frozen to death. This is an illustration of the 
extrenie measures which will be adopted to accomplish the landing 
of Chinamen in this country, and of the statement hereinbefore made 
that the mercantile firms do not hesitate to engage in such business. 
(Bu. Im. No. 11G49 C.) 


NONMERCANTILE FIRMS. 

It has frequently been necessary to refuse admission, or readmis¬ 
sion, to Chinamen claiming membership in firms located in this coun¬ 
try, because an investigation of their status showed either that the\ 
were not members within the meaning and intent of the act of No¬ 
vember 3, 1893, or else that the firm Avith which they were connected 
was engaged principally in smuggling or in gambling and opium¬ 
smoking enterprises. For instance, on April 30, 1903, the Depart¬ 
ment held that an alleged mercantile firm, known as Wouy Hong 
Loav Company, of Butte, Mont., Avas not a mercantile firm, and that 
no Chinaman alleging membership therein could properly be alloAved 
to enter the United States. (Bu. Im. No. 6131 C.) On December 
29, 1903, the same decision Avas rendered with regard to a firm known 
as Quong Wo Lung Company, of Helena, Mont., a thorough investi¬ 
gation having demonstrated that there Avas no proper ground for 
considering it a mercantile establishment. (Bu. Im. No. 10970 C.l 
The same rule Avas promulgated on January 14, 1904, Avith regard 
to the Lung Sing Company, of Kalispel, Mont., it having developed 
in connection Avith the iiiA^estigation of a Chinaman applying for 
admission that the said company carried a very small stock of goods 
and engaged principally in conducting gambling and lottery enter¬ 
prises on a large scale and also had a lodging house connected with 
their so-called store. (Bu. Im. No. 1114 C.) As recently as April 
11, 1905, a decision Avas rendered in the case of one Louie Kang, 
who applied for readmission to the United States at the port of 
Sumas, Wash., such decision being based upon an exhaustive iiiA^esti- 
gation of the business of the firm of Lun Chung Lung Company, 
from Avhich the folloAving is an extract: 

But one decision seems possible, viz, that the principal purpose of the organiza¬ 
tion and conduct of the firm of Lun Chung Lung Company is to furnish a means 
by which Chinese unlawfully in this country can gain privileges to which they 
are not entitled, and that it is not, therefore, a bona fide mercantile establish¬ 
ment within the meaning of the Chinese-exclusion laws. The appeal of the 
said Louie Kang is accordingly dismissed, and the firm of Lun Chung Lung 
Company is declared to be nonmercantile in character. You and all other offi¬ 
cers in charge should, therefore, refuse admission to any Chinese persons claim¬ 
ing membership in the said firm, and should decline to indorse the papers of 
persons desiring to visit China and asserting that they are partners in the said 
store, unless the firm should reorganize upon a bona fide basis and discontinue 
its unlawful practices. 


64 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


Your action in reporting the unlawful admission of Louie Bah Bin, as above 
described, to the officer in charge of the district of Montana and Idalio, in order 
that proceedings may he instituted against the said Chinese laborer for secur¬ 
ing admission by fraud, is approved. (Dept. Dec. No. 94.) 

And again, on Ajoril 20, 1905, it was declared that the firm of Wing 
Wo Chong Company, of Helena, Mont., was nonmercantile in char¬ 
acter, it having transpired that that firm also was being used, and 
had been used for years, as a blind for securing admission, or read¬ 
mission to this country of Chinese laborers. (Dept. Dec. No. 97.) 

FAKE FIRMS NOT UNCOMMON. 

It might perhaps be thought that the above cases are isolated and 
should not be regarded as sufficient to indicate that the practice 
illustrated thereby is general in character. Upon this point it should 
be stated that cases similar to those above cited are arising all the 
time; but it is not possible in each instance to obtain evidence which 
the Department would regard as sufficient to justify such drastic 
action as to declare a firm nonmercantile, it having been the practice 
to do this only upon the most convincing proofs. As an illustration 
of this, attention is directed to the following extract from Depart¬ 
ment Decision No. 93, of date April 11, 1905: 

To sustain you upon the second ground stated would involve a decision to 
the effect that the firm of Man Hop Company is not a bona fide mercantile estab¬ 
lishment within the meaning of the exclusion laws. The Department has in 
a number of instances rendered such decisions with regard to Chinese firms, 
but it has uniformly required, before taking such drastic action, very strong 
evidence to the effect that such firms are engaged in pursuits incompatible with 
a mercantile status. The record and the exhibits submitted therewith furnish 
many reasons for suspecting that the firm mentioned derives a considerable 
part of its income from the profits of conducting, either on its own responsi¬ 
bility or as agents, one or more lotteries, the drawings of which are held in a 
room in the rear of its sales room; hut the record does not establish that the 
greater part of the income of the firm is so derived, or that the merchandising 
feature is a mere adjunct to the gambling enterprise, or run as a “ blind ” for 
it. On the contrary, the record indicates that the firm carries a large stock 
of goods and engages quite extensively in the “ buying and selling of mer¬ 
chandise at a fixed place of business.” 

If it had been possible in this case to reduce to a tangible, definite shape the 
circumstances concerning gambling alluded to in the record, and the suspicions 
against the firm evidently existing in your mind as the result of past experience 
with the members thereof, the Department would feel justified in taking action 
upon this appeal similar to that shown by its decision on the appeal of Louis 
Kang, mailed you to-day; but as the record stands, the Department is con¬ 
strained, for the reasons above stated, to reverse your finding by sustaining the 
appeal. 

In cases of this character the usual action taken is to refuse admis¬ 
sion to the one person immediately concerned, and to exercise care 
in the investigation of cases of other persons claiming membership 
in the same firm that come up for consideration at later dates. 

A BUTTE “ MERCHANT.” 

But even the two practices combined have not proved effective of 
a discontinuance, or even a ])artial abatement, of the frauds perpe¬ 
trated by these alleged mercantile concerns upon the Government as 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


65 


an evidence of which a case arising as recently as January 12, 1906, 
might be alluded to, viz, the case of Hum Fong, an alleged domiciled 
merchant Avho arrived at the port of San Francisco on the date men¬ 
tioned, claiming the right to reenter the United States after a 
temporary absence therefrom as a member of the “ mercantile house 
of Tick Sang Lung Kee Company,” of Butte, Mont. An investiga- 
iion conducted at Butte showed that the “ store ” of the firm consisted 
of a basement on South Main alley, Butte city, containing “ a short 
counter, two gambling tables, three opium bunks, and a kitchen; be¬ 
sides which there is a kind of cupboard which the manager of the 
place said contained stock, but which I found to contain old lottery 
tickets.” To quote further from the inspector’s ret)ort: 

The “ manager ” claims that he has no books or papers of any kind showing 
goods bought, sold, or on hand; none showing when the place opened, names 
of those interested, or moneys received by firm or paid out. Applicant's 
name is not to be found on any papers or books, nor is any of his writing 

to be seen. The manager does not know what year applicant joined the firm, 

nor how long he had been connected with it before he went away, whether a 
tew days or a few months, but thinks it was several months. TTie manager 
admits he had not taken in a cent the day I was at his place, but as the games 
were just opening at 8 o’clock in the evening when 1 came in that is not to be 
wondered at. 

The records of this office show that from 1900 to 1902 15 persons were ad¬ 
mitted as being interested in this firm, 12 as partners and 3 as “ sons,” Of the 
0 partners claimed now, 4 of whom are in China, only 1 is ever seen at the 
place, and only 1 of the present alleged members is among the 12 admitted 

within the time referred to. It seems, therefore, that 12 persons were ad¬ 

mitted as members of the firm within two or three years, and that there are 


still 4 more awaiting admittance. 

* * * * H: >t< 

Previous investigations, so called, of this firm show that on— 

May 12, 1902, 5 members were claimed with interest of- $000 

April 18, 1902, 5 members were claimed with interest of- 800 

December, 1901, 7 members were claimed with interest of- 

February 2, 1901, 7 members were claimed with interest of_ 500 

January 25, 1901, 7 members were claimed with interest of_1,000 

January 15, 1901, 7 members were claimed with interest of- 500 

November 22, 1900, 6 members were claimed with interest of (total)- 3,500 

June 28, 1901 _ 000 

April 19, 1900, 7 members were claimed with interest of- 500 


Yet this Chinaman, at the time of his departure from the United 
States, experienced, apparently, no difficulty in securing an affidavit, 
signed by “ two credible white witnesses,” to the effect that, to 
affiants’ personal knowledge, he had been engaged, during the year 
antedating his departure, in buying and selling merchandise at a 
fixed place of business, and had performed no manual labor except 
such as Avas necessary in so buying and selling merchandise during 
such period. When questioned the witnesses were obliged to admit 
that they had signed the affidavit on the strength of Avhat a Avell- 
iviiown “‘ merchant ” of Butte had told them, and because the appli¬ 
cant had bought goods from them at different times for some one “ on 
Main alley.” Notwithstanding this condition some Avorthy citizens 
of this country think that the Chinese inspectors are entirely too 
inquisitive in iiiATstigating the claims of domiciled merchants, and are 
too prone to look Avith suspicion upon affidavits submitted in behalf 
of such persons. (Bu. Im. file No. 14594 C.) 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-5 











66 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


“ MERCHANTS ” ADMITTED AND REJECTED IN 1904 AND 1905. 

The following table shows the number of Chinese “ domiciled mer¬ 
chants ” admitted and rejected during the past two fiscal years, figures 
for this separate class not being available for prior years: 


Fiscal year. 

Admitted. 

Rejected. 

Total. 

1904.. 

589 

95 

684 

1905.... 

548 

70 

618 


Total. 

1,137 

165 

1,302 



(On the subject of domiciled merchants, see also Senate Report 
No. 776 (part 2), 57th Congress, 1st session, pp. 68-74 and 229, note.) 

TWO NEW ENGLAND CASES. 

Two very recent cases may be added to those already cited, as 
illustrating the manner in which Chinese in this country, in con¬ 
junction with careless or purchasable white witnesses, make use of 
the domiciled merchant claim as a means of evading the law. On 
April 25, 1906, there arrived at the port of Richford two Chinamen 
who claimed that they had formerly been engaged as merchants 
in a certain firm of Providence, R. I. They Avere supplied with 
affidavits subscribed and sworn to by the manager of the Providence 
firm, and by two white citizens of that place, reciting that they were 
members of the firm and had not been engaged in laboring pursuits 
during the year antedating their departure for a visit to China. One 
of these men Avhen examined made such a poor shoAving as to knoAvl- 
edge of locations and events that the examining officer finally told 
him that he did not believe, from his manner of testifying, that he 
had ever been in the United States before, and called "upon him to 
tell the truth. The Chinaman then confessed that he was being 
brought to this country by the manager of the firm, and that he had 
never been outside of China up to the time of embarking on the 
vessel Avhich brought him to Vancouver, from which point he pro¬ 
ceeded by rail to Richford. The other Chinaman insisted that he 
had lived in Providence, and it transpired that his statement was 
true to that extent, but it Avas also found that instead of having been 
a rnerc^nt during the year antedating his departure he had been a 
waiter in a restaurant. (Bu. Im. file No. 14610 C/31-32.) 

















CHAPTER VI. 


WIVES AND MINOR CHILDREN OF DOMICILED MERCHANTS. 

Authority under which admitted. Frequent character of. Danger to 
enforcement of exclusion laws caused by. Reasons for requiring con¬ 
vincing proofs concerning. Illustrations. What becomes of. Number of 
admitted in last two fiscal years. 

There is no direct provision in the exclusion treaty and laws for 
the admission of the wives and minor children of Chinese domiciled 
in this country. It has long been held, both judicially and by admin¬ 
istrative decisions, that the wives and children of laborers can not be 
admitted. The wives and minor children of members of the exempt 
classes are admitted under the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. 
Gue Lim v. United States (176 U. S., 459), in which that tribunal 
held, on February 26, 1900, that it was not reasonable to suppose 
that Congress intended by the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., p. 115), 
to exclude the wives and minor children of Chinese merchants domi¬ 
ciled in this country and to thus deprive such merchants of the com¬ 
panionship of their wives and of the privilege of caring for and nur¬ 
turing their minor children. Other decisions of a like character and 
based upon a similar line of reasoning had previously been rendered. 
(42 F. R., 398; 85 F. R., 635; 83 F. R., 136.) 

No question is made, of course, as to the wisdom and justice of the 
court decisions alluded to; but the facts remain that in many instances 
the “ wives ” of these domiciled merchants are either concubines or 
prostitutes, and after being brought to this country are sold into the 
most abject and abliorrent kind of slavery, and that the “ children ” 
seldom require the care and protection of their paternal “ parents ” 
in this country until such children are 18, 19, or 20 years-old and 
ablebodied enough to put in sixteen or eighteen hours’ labor'a day at 
a washboard or ironing table, and thus earn sufficient to repay the 
promoter (domiciled merchant), the broker (Chineses attorney), and 
the society (tong), that have interested themselves in bringing about 
his induction into this “ paradise ” for the Chinaman ambitious to 
make his fortune. 


REGULATION SUBJECT TO ABUSE. 

The danger to an effective administration of the law from this 
source early engaged the attention of the Bureau of Immigration. 
The following is quoted from the annual report of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General for 1901 (p. 47) : 

In the case of an alleged minor son of a domiciled merchant the facts alleged 
to sustain such claim must all have existed in China, to wit, the marriage of 
the parents and the birth of the son, as well as the date of birth, and are there- 

67 


68 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLTJSION LAWS. 


fore proved by Chinese testimony exclusively. The Government has no means 
of refuting a prima facie case thus established, and must admit an applicant 
upon such evidence, unless it can find, in minor variations in the testimony of 
the different Chinese witnesses, ground for discrediting it altogether. The 
simple statement of the case is sufficient to show with what comparative ease 
the law may be defied by the entrance of Chinamen, without limit practically, 
who can be made to pass muster as minors. 

In the chapter on the Eegnlations (p. 23) reasons are given for 
the requirement that very convincing evidence shall be produced 
in the cases of alleged domiciled merchants. It is obvious that the 
same reasons apply to the cases of alleged wives and minor children; 
in fact, when it is considered that the latter class of cases must rest 
largely upon testimony of interested persons of the Chinese race, the 
causes for even greater caution can be understood. 

CASE OF AN ALLEGED DAUGHTER. 

In substantiation of the view hereinbefore expressed, that domi¬ 
ciled merchants do not scruple to avail themselves of the privilege of 
enjoying the companionship of their families as a means to import 
domestic slaves and prostitutes into this country, the following two 
cases are interesting: (1) The case of Siet She, a prostitute, Avhom a 
prominent merchant attempted to import, such case being outlined 
on page 62 of this paper under the chapter relating to domiciled 
merchants; and (2) the case of Loo Guie Ho, a Chinese girl, aged 
12, who was brought to the port of San Francisco on November 12 
last by a prominent merchant of that city on the claim that she was 
his daughter. 

In the case of Loo Guie Ho the preponderance of the eAudence was 
so strongl}^ to the effect that the relationship existed that the Depart¬ 
ment was constrained to admit the girl, partly for that reason, but 
also partly because of a belief that if she Avere returned to China she 
Avoidd fall into the hands of the slave and prostitute dealers in that 
country, in which event her condition would be CA^en Avorse than it 
could liecome here. IIoAvever, such a frank, straightforAvard story 
was told by a little boy of 9, Avho accompanied the same party as the 
son of the merchant, to the effect that Loo Guie Ho Avas not his sister, 
but was a slave girl who had been purchased in China about a year 
previously, prior to which time he had neA^er seen her, that the* De¬ 
partment was strongly inclined to belieA^e that she Avas such a slave, 
especially as the attitude assumed by her toAvard her alleged mother 
was that of a servant rather than a daughter, and the boy quite evi¬ 
dently had not been instructed by any of the interested parties as to 
what he should say, it apparently being thought that because of his 
^ youth he Avould not be examined. 

LABORERS POSE AS MINOR SONS. 

« 

Although it is occasionally learned in such definite, specific ways 
as to cast suspicion upon other like cases that a “ minor son ” has 
become a laborer immediately after being admitted, the folloAvino- 
extract from the annuql report of the Commissioner-General for 1903 
(p. 104) probably advances the best explanation as to what becomes 


ENFORCEMENT OF CIIINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


69 


of this class of Chinese, they bein^* naturally averse to admitting, 
after assuming the occupation of laborers, that they are anything 
less than “ full-fledged American citizens,” a status which affords 
them, and their wives and children as well, the highest measure of 
protection and privilege. (See chapter on natives, p. 91.) 

A significant feature of the minor-son cases is that usually those Chinese per¬ 
sons who pose as such for the first time feel the need of a father’s nurture and 
training when they are approximating their majority, often, moreover, belying 
their alleged tender age by exhibiting the physical characteristics of fully 
matured men. Once admitted, they are lost in the mass of their countrymen 
and may, with comparative impunity, become and continue indefinitely to be 
laborers. Should they, however, be found laboring and fail to produce the cer¬ 
tificate of residence prescribed by law they can be arrested and, by the means 
already described, undertake, with some confidence of the result, to convince the 
United States commissioner before whom they are taken that they were born in 
the United States. 

On April 17,1905, a case was brought to the attention of the Bureau 
which furnishes a good illustration of the fact that Chinamen admit¬ 
ted to this country as minor sons of members of the exempt classes do 
not, in many instances, after reaching their majority, enter the pur¬ 
suits which only are legally permissible for members of such classes. 

Such a condition was found in connection with an application on 
the ]3art of Yee Wing, of Pittsburg, Pa., for the privilege of visiting 
China and returning to the United States. It developed, upon inves¬ 
tigating the Chinaman’s claims, that he was actively engaged in the 
occupation of a laborer, although he had but a few years previously 
been admitted to the United States as the minor son of a Pittsburg 
merchant. He was accordingly advised that he could not be readmit¬ 
ted to this country after departure therefrom, but by reason of the 
unfavorable conditions, in a judicial way, existing at Pittsburg (see 
chapter on “Conditions in general,” p. 7), he was not arrested on 
the charge of unlawful residence. It has subsequently transpired 
that the said Yee Wing departed for China, notwithstanding the 
adverse decision upon his case, and it has been learned that he will 
attempt to reenter the United States at El Paso, Tex. The officers 
stationed at that port have been directed to keep a close watch for him 
in Juarez, Mexico, and to prevent his reentry if possible. (See Bu. 
Im. file No. 13895 C.) 


WIVES AND MINOR CHILDREN ADMITTED, 1904 AND 1905. 

The following table shows the number of alleged wives and minor 
children admitted to this country during the fiscal years 1904 and 
1905, respectively, statistics covering this class of cases -as distin¬ 
guished from other admissible classes not having been kept in prior 
years: 



1904. 

1905. 

Total. 


36 

123 

36 

161 

72 

284 


• 

159 

197 

356 
























70 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSTON LAWS 


DANGER FROM “ MINOR-SON ” RULING. 

In closing this chapter it seems necessary to a complete understand¬ 
ing of the situation to include the following quotation from the an¬ 
nual report of the Commissioner-General for 1904 (pp. 144-145) : 

Closely allied in some respects to the subject of alleged Chinese natives is that 
of the minor sons of lawfully resident Chinese merchants. Their status is, like 
the native born, dependent upon proof of birth and parentage, with the added 
difficulty that the events upon which they claim admission occurred at some 
remote village in China, instead of in this country, where it is always possible 
to make some kind of effective inquiry. 

The admissibility of this class of Chinese persons is also dependent upon a 
judicial ruling—that of the Supreme Court in the Gue Lim case—and upon sub¬ 
sequent liberal constructions of the principle laid down therein to embrace 
cases presenting quite a different state of facts from those before the court in 
the leading case. The minor-son abuse, however, is not so serious as the native 
born. It carries with it no incidental rights additional to that of admissibility 
during minority, although there is good reason to believe that most of the 
minor sons either become laborers" at once or as soon as they reach their 
majority, which in most instances they confessedly will attain in a few months, 
and in many others they have apparently already passed. In the event, how¬ 
ever, that they do become laborers, they are subject to arrest and deportation 
unless they can impose upon the United States commissioners by representing 
themselves as lawfully resident laborers, i>resenting fraudulent certificates of 
residence or so-called merchants’ certificates, or else by claiming, as they fre¬ 
quently do, birth in the United States. The facility with which Chinese per¬ 
sons can change their names, and the ease with which corroborating Chinese 
testimony can be secured, unite to make the task of deceiving judicial officers, 
especially those who have never given their individual assent to the justice of 
the exclusion policy, an easy one. As such cases come before United States 
commissioners almost invariably, and as Congress saw fit to grant a right of 
appeal fi-om that officer only to the Chinsee prisoner, the necessity for a rather 
critical investigation of the minor-son cases will be obvious. This necessity, 
however, will become more pressing hereafter than it is now, for until the 
native-born resource proves unreliable as a means of securing admission, it 
will continue to be the most tenq)ting of all claims for young Chinamen. 

Attention is also directed to the case of Hum Fong (Bn. Im. file 
No. 14595 C) cited in detail in the chapter on Domiciled Merchants 
(p. 60) ; and to the case of Lew Chun Kong (Bu. Im. file No. 
14282 C). 

(On subject of wives and minors, see also Senate Report No. 776, part 2, 
57th Congress, 1st session, pp. 126 and 321-322.) 


CHAPTER VII. 
LABORERS. 


Only admissible class of. Conditions under which readmitted. Dif¬ 
ficulties attending enforcement of laws regarding return of. Frauds 
perpetrated with certificates; by transfer of; by altering and selling; by 
outright forgeries; by fraudulently securing certificates in lieu; by 
pawning as security for loans or contracts. Surreptitious departure 
and return of. Number of lawfully returning. Necessity for arresting; 
number arrested; cost of deporting; manner of arresting; attempted 
census and results. Employment of on American vessels. 

Under the Chinese-exclnsion laws there is only one admissible 
class of laborers, composed, for all practical purposes, as pointed 
out in the cha})ter on the regulations (p. 23), of all Chinese not 
specifically exempted from the excluding provisions thereof, viz, 
what are commonly termed lawfully domiciled laborers—that is, 
those who were in this country during the registration period (^lay 
5, 1892, to May 3, 1894), and availed themselves of the privilege of 
registering under either the act of May 5, 189^2 (27 Stat., p. 25), 
or the amendatory act of November 3, 1893 (28 Stat., p. 7). If any 
of these lawfully domiciled laborers leave the country they can be 
readmitted thereto, within a year, or at most two years, from the date 
of departure, only upon establishing by satisfactory proofs that one 
of the conditions named in sections 6 and 7 of the act of September 
13, 1888 (25 Stat., p. 476), exists, viz, that “he has a lawful wife, 
child, or parent in the United States, or property therein of the value 
of $1,000, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement.” 

INTENT OF LAW. 

That the intent of the law was, not only to prevent an increase in 
that class of Chinese in this country, but to gradually reduce the 
number already here, is further shown by the limitation placed upon 
the right to return, one year being fixed as the ordinary period, and 
an additional period “not to exceed a year ” being granted, under 
certain stijnilations as to the character of evidence to be accepted, 
in cases where return within the first year Avas not possible by reason 
of sickness or other unavoidable causes (section 7). 

ft 

DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTING LAW. 

These provisions of law are enforced only with great difficulty. 
The evidence usually produced consists of the testimony of tAvo Chi¬ 
nese persons, usually clansmen or “ cousins ” of the applicant, for a 
“ return certificate ”*or “ return permit;” and, by reason of the clan¬ 
nishness of the Chinese, it is a hard matter to discredit such evidence, 

71 


I 


72 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


althoKg’li the officers are often satisfied from the utterly ridiculous 
statements made under examination that the claim is a tissue of 
falsehoods and perjury. In the annual report of the Commissioner- 
General for the fiscal year 1902 (pp. 72-74) considerable space is 
devoted to a discussion of this evil. Congress itself, in the act of 
1888, recognized the difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence, as the 
Avording of that statute shows. This is not the only nor the chief 
difficulty Avhich is encountered by administrative officers, however, 
in their efforts to enforce the law relating to registered Chinese labor¬ 
ers. In fact, if it were, but comparatively little importance could 
be attached to the matter, as the return of a few laborers, who had 
already been her^ lawfully, even though such return were accom¬ 
plished by perjured testimony, would not materially add to the Chi¬ 
nese population. The large evils of the subject arise in quite differ¬ 
ent ways. 

TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES. 

Certificates issued to Chinese laborers under the act of 1892 are 
regarded by the courts and by administrative officers as equally valu¬ 
able as those issued under the act of 1893. Many of those issued 
under the first act had no photographs attached, and could be, there¬ 
fore, and have been, dealt in extensively. Many certificates issued 
under the first act are still extant, and can be readily ‘passed from 
hand to hand—a condition which is knoAvn to exist but which is not 
readily susceptible of proof in a given case, especially Avhen, as a 
rule, a number of clansmen can be produced to testify that a China¬ 
man presenting such a certificate is the rightful holder of it. Again, 
many domiciled laborers Avere registered under both acts, thus obtain¬ 
ing two certificates, one of Avhich he could continue to use for his 
own protection, and the other he could dispose of to a “ cousin ” 
brought by him later from China. A case in point is that of Wong 
Chong (Bu. Im. file No. 14580 C), in Avhich, under cross-examination 
he finally admitted that he had obtained his certificate from a cousin 
registered tAvice. 

SALE OF CERTIFICATES. 

Another method adopted by the registered laborer is this: Return¬ 
ing to China himself to spend the remainder of his days, he takes his 
certificate Avith him. If it has a photograph attached, it is substi¬ 
tuted Avith another, the impression of the seal being ironed out and 
then replaced over the edge of the new photograph in a manner so 
skillful as to deceiA^e any but the most expert officers; or, if no photo¬ 
graph is attached, all the better. The certificate is transferred to a 
son, or a “ cousin,” or a nepheAV, or sold for a money consideration to 
anyone sufficiently fortunate to command the price; and the person 
thus supplied Avith indisputable evidence of laAvful residence proceeds 
to the Canadian, or preferably the Mexican, border, and, if successful 
in evading the inspectors, takes up his residence soon after in one of 
the interior toAvns, and if called on at a later date to shoAv his papers 
produces the purchased certificate and blandly remarks that he has 
never been out of this country since being registered. Numerous 
frauds of this character have been detected, notAvithstanding the diffi¬ 
culty of making such detection; and it is only reasonable to believe 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


78 


that many, a great many, more have been perpetrated snccessfnlly. 
(Bn. Im. file Nos. 13479 C, several cases; 8273 C; 9740 C; 10007 C, 
several cases; 13705 C; 11095 C; 11216 C, several cases; a few ex¬ 
amples; many others could be furnished if required.) 


CERTIFICATES COUNTERFEITED. 

Nor do the Chinese confine themselves to the altering of regularly 
issued certificates. Many outright counterfeits have been found in 
the hands of Chinese in this country; in fact there is good reason to 
believe that a regular business has been conducted for years consist- 
pig of the issue and sale of such forgeries, although the vigilance of 
immigration officials since the concentration of authority in the 
Bureau of Immigration has greatly discouraged and discredited such 
business, so many arrests of Chinese furnished with counterfeits hav¬ 
ing been made as to considerably reduce the value of the papers. 
(As a few examples of this practice, see Bu. Im. file Nos. 6858 C; 
9067 C; 9391 C; 9938 C, several cases; 10007 C, several cases; 11989 
C, several cases; 12326 C; and 12596 C.) Of interest, in this con¬ 
nection, is the following letter, dated June 10, 1904 (Bu. Im. file No. 
11216 C), from the inspector in charge of the district of New Mexico 
and Arizona: 

This is to advise you that we have succeeded in capturing the following- 
described articles, used in filling out fraudulent Chinese certificates: 

1 rubber stamp, “ San Francisco, California.” 

1 rubber stamp, “ First.” 

1 rubber stamp, “ Laborer.” 

1 rubber stamp, “ Issued under Amendment Act of November 3, 1893.” 

9 wooden stamps, figures “ 0 ” to ” 9,” inclusive, except the figure “ 1.” 

1 mucilage brush. 

2 ink pads, purple and red. 

2 bottles stamp ink, purple and red. 

1 seal, internal-revenue collector, first district of California. 

And 283 fraudulent certificates, which I have this date forwarded to the 
Ilureau by express. 

We have been working on the case for quite a while with the hopes of cap¬ 
turing some Chinamen who have been supplied with the fraudulent certificates, 
having previously made arrangements with the Mexican officials that upon the 
capture of one in the United States that they would assist us at La Cananea, 
Sonora, Mexico, in raiding the place where the said certificates were issued and 
arrest parties issuing the same, but notwithstanding the fact that every effort 
possible was used by us to keep the matter secret, it became known that we 
were in possession of a photo of said certificate, and it was with great difficulty 
that the matter was kept out of print. When it was found that the matter 
could be kept no longer, I wired Inspector Charles T. Connell to capture the 
outfit without delay, and he, in conjunction with Inspector V. W. Clark, pro¬ 
ceeded to La Cananea, Sonora, Mexico, and, assisted by the Mexican officials, 
visited the saloon and residence of one C. A. Springstien, and searched the same, 
succeeding in capturing the above-enumerated articles. As we had not found 
any of the fraudulent certificates in possession of Chinese in the United States 
no arrest could be made. 

These certificates were purchased by C. A. Springstien from Louis Green- 
waldt, whose past history and prison record was recently forwarded to the 
Bureau, and who is now supposed to be in British Columbia. 

Also the following letter, dated February 3, 1906 (Bu. Im. file No. 
14445 C), from the inspector in charge of the Texas district: 

Keferring to previous corresiiondence in regard to the prosecution of G. A. 
Griffin and Will Caldwell, of Big Springs, on the charge of conspiring to manu¬ 
facture fraudulent certificates of residence for Chinese laborers, I take pleasure 


74 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


in advising the Bureau that on January 26 last both of these men pleaded guilty 
to the charge of conspiracy at Dallas, Tex., and on February 1 were sentenced 
by Federal Judge Meek, of Fort Worth, as follows: 

G. A. Griffin, two years in the Federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga. 

Will Caldwell, one year and one day in the Federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga. 

FRAUDS IN DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES. 

Still another prolific field for fraud is found by the Chinaman and 
his attorney in the long-established administrative practice of issuing 
to resident laborers, upon proof of the former possession and un¬ 
avoidable loss or destruction of a certificate, a duplicate in lieu of 
such lost or destroyed original. This practice is an indirect observ¬ 
ance of the terms of section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat., p. 
25), it having been thought only just that an unavoidable loss should 
be met by issuing a duplicate certificate, without subjecting the unfor¬ 
tunate Chinaman to the annoyance and expense of arrest and trial. 
The Chinaman lost no time in availing himself of this liberality of 
treatment, and the result has been the issue of many duplicates to 
laborers impersonating others who actually were registered, or to 
Chinamen who have not actualty lost their original certificates, but 
who are anxious to secure a duplicate so as to furnish a clansman with 
the old one. Before the Immigration Service was made a part of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor the registration records and the 
authority to issue duplicate certificates were possessed by the various 
collectors of internal revenue throughout the country—an arrange¬ 
ment which made frauds of the character above mentioned compara¬ 
tively easy of perpetration. In many instances they were purely 
cases of imposition upon the Government offtcers; in others clerks in 
the offices of the collectors connived at the frauds and derived a profit 
from them. As illustrative of the first, see Bu. Im. file Ao. 10007 C, 
and as an example of the latter take the case of W. H. Dillard. (Bu. 
Im. file No. 14395 C.) 

DILLARD CASE. 

Dillard, a negro, was a clerk in the office of the collector of internal 
revenue at San Francisco. x\fter he had been issuing forged dupli¬ 
cate certificates for years, he was detected, and finally, on October 23, 
1905, was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. 
It has not been possible to determine exactly how many such forgeries 
he issued, but almost daily discoveries of additional evidences amono; 
the registration records now on file in the Bureau of Immigration 
leads to the belief that a large number were prepared and sold by him; 
and as it was indicated by the testimony on file with the appeal record 
of one Woo Young (Bu. Im. file No. 14395 C), a Chinese laborer who 
had secured such a certificate and had attempted to make a visit to 
China thereon, that the certificate cost $100, Dillard must have real¬ 
ized a very handsome income from his operations. Dillard’s plan was 
this: He Wd an arrangement with certain Chinese in San Francisco 
under which, upon the receipt of two photographs of a customer, he 
would make use of the blank forms, stamps, seal, and other parapher¬ 
nalia under his control in the office, to issue to such customer a certi¬ 
ficate purporting to be in lieu of some number formerly issued in 
the California district, on “ proof of the loss or destruction ” of such 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


75 


original, stamping in the blank spaces on the forms, attaching the 
seal, and forging the signature of the collector. (Bu. Im. file No. 
11612 C.) 

IMPROVED CONDITIONS. 

Now that all of the registration records are in the custody of the 
Bureau, and the issuance of duplicates can therefore be directly super¬ 
vised by it, a continuation of these 'evils will not be possible, except 
that even the Bureau may occasionally be imposed upon by false 
testimony. But the results of the frauds heretofore perpetrated will 
long continue to exist, as they can be detected, if at all, only in a 
gradual manner. (Bu. Im. file Nos. 13916 and 14193 C.) Up to and 
including December 31, 1905, the Bureau issued 585 certificates in 
lieu of lost ones, its control of this matter dating from July 1, 1903. 

PAWNING CERTIFICATES OF RESIDENCE. 

The Bureau of Immigration had hardly assumed charge of the 
enforcement of the exclusion h*ws when it became convinced that 
certificates of residence had a regular market value. It found that 
the practice was almost universal in the Pacific coast districts, and 
prevailed to some extent elsewhere, of pawning certificates as security 
for loans or as collateral in connection with contracts, especially con¬ 
tracts covering a season's labor in the salmon canneries. (See Annual 
Report Commissioner-General 1901, pp. 47—18.) The most per¬ 
sistent efforts have resulted merely in a reduction of this practice, so 
that it is quite evident that these papers are still valuable articles of 
barter. 

SURREPTITIOUS DEPARTURES AND RETURNS. 

The Chinese laborer is averse, for several reasons, to complying 
with the provisions of law requiring him to surrender his residence 
certificate and secure in lieu thereof a return certificate before leav¬ 
ing this country, especially if he is desirous of remaining abroad for 
more than a year. Whenever he can do so he will sneak out and 
sneak in, carrying his certificate in his pocket. As illustrating this, 
the following telegram from the inspector in charge at El Paso, Tex., 
dated December 28, 1905 (Bu. Im., file No. 14296 C), is quoted: 

One hundred fifty certificate Chinese crossed at El Paso since July 1, this year. 
Doubtless many more not discovered. 

This telegram is indicative of a deplorable condition, not only be¬ 
cause of the direct violation of law by the laborers themselves, but 
by reason of the encouragement which their success in evading the 
laws gives other laborers not possessed of certificates to cross the 
Mexican border, and trust to their luck to convince a United States 
commissioner, if arrested, that they are natives, merchants, or minor 
sons of merchants, and not subject to deportation. This feature of 
the subject is discussed at more length in the section devoted to 
“ Conditions in general—Mexican border.” 

LAWFUL DEPARTURES AND RETURNS. 

During the past five fiscal years the following numbers of domi¬ 
ciled lal)orers, respectively, have departed from and returned to the 
United States in a lawful manner, to which must be added a large 


76 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


but iiidefiliite number who have preferred the surreptitious methods 
mentioned in the preceding paragraph: 


Year. 

Depart¬ 

ing. 

Retnni- 

ing. 

1901. 

Rt02........ 

2 , 7:35 

2,a54 

1,995 

792 

500 

2,280 

2,495 

1,459 

1,392 

623 

1903......:.:. 

1904... 

1905..;... 

Total..... 

• 8,076 

8,249 



) 


It is interesting to note how, as the enforcement of the law and 
the discoveries of frauds increased, the number departing and return¬ 
ing decreased. The advantages of the Bertillon system of identifi¬ 
cation in connection with these returning laborers has been discussed 
in tlie chapter on regulations (p. 23). 


ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS. 


As the principal purpose of the exclusion laws is to keep out 
laborers (not coolies, but all laborers, in the peculiar sense in which 
that term is employed in the laws and in the judicial interpretation 
of those laws), the chapters of this paper devoted to “ Conditions in 
general,” “ The exempts,” “ Domiciled merchants,” “ Minors,” and 
The regulations,” are a part of this story. When those chapters 
and this one are considered conjointly, or even separately, the neces¬ 
sity for making arrests of Chinese found in the United States with¬ 
out the credentials prescribed by law is obvious. In the past five 
fiscal years Chinese have been arrested, acquitted, and ordered de¬ 
ported by the courts, as indicated by the following table: 


Year. 

Arrested. 

Acquitted. 

Deported. 

Cost of de¬ 
portation. 

1901... 

897 

457 

440 

$46,940.44 

19^2 ...... 

1,128 

609 

519 

54,1(H).09 

1901-____ 

1,420 

716 

704 

80,:375.45 

19( 4 ..... 

1,793 

1,010 

783 

75,536.10 

1905 ......•. 

1,086 

441 

647 

67,730.61 

Total.J..... 

6,326 

3,233 

3,093 

324,682.69 


This total cost of deportation does not include the cost of making 
the arrests and trying the Chinese, but represents only the expense 
immediately connected with the deportation, the other expense being 
payable from an appropriation under the control of the Department 
of Ju'^tice. (An. Kept. Com. Gen., 1905, chart 6.) 

With the exception of the general arrest of Chinese made in Bos¬ 
ton in the fall of 1903 (described in the chapter on “ Complaints,” 
p. 125), the practice in the interior of the United States has been 
to niake arrests as gradually and at as infrequent intervals as a proper 
enforcement of the law would permit, it being found that better 
results are thus obtained, with the excitement of the minimum 
amount of criticism on the part of those individuals who do not 
sympathize with the law and who are so unpatriotic as to desire to 













































ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


77 


see it defeated whenever possible. Along onr land boundaries, of 
c'onrse, one of the chief functions of the inspectors is to arrest all 
strange Chinese laborers before they can scatter into the interior, 
otherwise a preininm would be placed upon smuggling. Ever}^ 
reasonable opportunity is always afforded any Chinaman suspected 
of unlawful residence to produce evidence to the contrary before 
placing such person under arrest; failing to produce anything of 
a satisfactory character to establish his right to be here he is taken 
before a United States commissioner and a warrant obtained and 
served on him in the regular manner. 

For further comment as to the necessity for and legality of making 
arrests, see the chapter on regulations (p. 23). Since the insti¬ 
tution of the boycott no arrests have been made in the interior, except' 
in a few isolated cases of so flagrant a character that they could not 
be overlooked without subjecting the ofRcers to a charge of violation 
of the law by neglecting to perform the duties contemplated by their 
oaths of office. Along the borders, however, the policy Avith regard 
to making arrests has not changed to any great extent. When it is 
remembered that the arrests reported in the table on page 76 Avere 
not, to any appreciable extent, the result of systematic efforts to locate 
and bring to trial Chinese unlaAvfully here in the interior of the 
country, but Avere made incidentally in connection with the investi¬ 
gation of claims of returning laborers and “ merchants,” the number 
that might be apprehended by organized effort can scarcely be 
conceived. 

ATTEMPTED CENSUS. 

During the spring of 1905 the various inspectors in charge en¬ 
deavored to take a census of the Chinese in their resj^ectiA^e districts, 
not Avith a a ieAv to making immediate arrests at all, but in order to 
compile for their respective offices data of a reliable nature for future 
use, it-being thought that the possession of such data Avould greatly 
simplify and expedite the investigation of merchants’ and laborers’ 
cases arising in the future. (See pp. 88-90, An. Kept. Com. Gen., 
1905.) The Chinese persistently resisted and obstructed the efforts 
of the officers, resorting to many amusing expedients to evade the 
furnishing of information, and finally such a storm of protest arose 
that the Department ordered the officers to desist froin any further 
efforts. In the most densely populated districts but little progress 
had been made when the discontinuance Avas ordered; in some of the 
more thinly populated the census Avas completed, and in still others 
it was almost finished. This partial census resulted in the discovery 
that there are in the United States, outside of the State of California^ 
16,601 Chinese who possessed evidence of their right to reside here, 
6,239 who do not possess such evidence, and 11,178 Avith regard to 
AAdiom no statement as to the possession of such evidence Avas obtained. 
But, by reason of the fact that in some localities the census Avas not 
completed, and of the further fact that it Avas extremely difficult to 
obtain information from or regarding Chine.se, the figures 6,239 can 
not be regarded as even approximating the number of laborers here 
unlawfully. 


78 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


CHINESE SEAMEN. 

In no respect is the enforcement of the law as to laborers more 
unsatisfactory than as regards Chinese seamen. This for two rea¬ 
sons: (1) The deck of an American vessel for all other purposes is 
considered American soil; in the enforcement of the exclusion laws 
it is so considered when to the advantage of the Chinaman and the 
vessel employing him, but not otherwise. For instance: A Chinese 
laborer resident in this country and registered in legal manner, ships 
on an American vessel and sails all over the world, remaining absent 
from American territory as long as he pleases, but, if he returns on 
the same vessel, he is allowed to reenter this country without question, 
6n the theory that, constructively, he has never departed from Ameri¬ 
can territory; yet Chinese crews can be engaged in China on vessels 
of American register, and can even be transferred in American ports 
from one such vessel to another. Thus there exists a highly contra¬ 
dictory condition. It has not been possible yet to test the matter 
in the courts; and meanwhile American labor is almost wholly re¬ 
placed by Chinese on vessels of American register engaged in the 
trans-Pacific trade. (2) The greater the extent to which Chinese 
laborers are engaged on vessels entering American ports, the greater 
the difficulty of preventing escapes and substitutions, many of which 
occur even under the most favorable circumstances. 

In conclusion, attention is directed to page 105 of the-Annual 
Eeport of the Commissioner-General, 1903; and to page 100, Annual 
Report Commissioner-General, 1905. 

(With regard to seamen, see also Senate Report No. 776 (part 2), 
Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 134-137; 201, note; and 
243-257.) 


CHAPTER VIII. 


TRANSITS. 


Conditions existing when enforcement of Chinese-excliision laws was 
placed in Bureau of Immigration. Difficulties encountered, leading to 
close scrutiny of applications for transit. Number of Chinese in transit. 
A recent illustration of had faith. 

The enforcement of the Chinese-exclnsion laws had not long been 
in the hands of the Immigration Service before it was realized that 
one of the most extensive frauds practiced upon the Government was 
connected with the ostensible passage through this country of Chi¬ 
nese laborers in transit to foreign contiguous territory, especially 
Mexico. Any laborer denied admission at a port of entry upon 
attempting to land as an exempt, or on other fraudulent papers, 
would effect his unlawful purpose by coming to San Francisco tick¬ 
eted through to some Mexican town, or to Cuba, and would then 
either leave the train while en route through the United States, or 
else would come back across the border; or, if from Cuba, would 
board some small “ tramp ” vessel and take up a residence in this 
country, despite our laws. Receiving such abundant evidence of this 
as to convince it of the magnitude of the unlawful enterprise grow¬ 
ing out of the granting of the privilege of transit—a privilege which 
had theretofore been granted to practically all Chinese applying 
therefor—the Bureau of Immigration recommended the adoption of 
the rules governing the transit of Chinese which Avere approved by 
the Secretary of the Treasury on December 8, 1900, and which were 
the basis of all subsequent rules bearing upon the same subject. Said 
rules are discussed at length in the chapter on “ Regulations,” at pp. 
83-36 of this j)aper, Avhich pages should be read in connection with 
these remarks. 


* TROGRESS IN CHECKING TRANSIT ABUSE. 

In the annual report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration 
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1901 (pp. 49-50), it was stated that 
Avhile these rules had in a measure checked the abuses, there was still 
rea.son to believe that many of the large numbers still granted the 
privilege of transit to Mexico, where work Avas not abundant and 
peon labor could be obtained at a small cost, Avere proceeding to that 
country for the purpose of crossing into the United States over the 
long and necessarily thinly guarded boundary. In the annual report 
of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for the fiscal year 
ended June 30, 1902 (p. 75), satisfactory results Avere reported as to 
progress made in breaking up the transit abuse, but attention Avas 
again directed to the large numbers seeking transit, as compared Avith 
tile knoAvn requirements of Mexico for laj)or. The same is true of 
the next annual report (p. 104), and of the next (p. 148). 

79 


/ 


80 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


REASONS FOR STRICT RULES. 

The following extracts from letters received in the summer of 
1901 from the Chinese inspector in charge at San Francisco and of 
inclosures referred to therein are furnished as illustrations of the 
necessity for a close watch of the “ transit Chinese ” and for the 
enforcement of strict rules on the subject: 

Poet of San Francisco, Cal., 

. May 22, 1901. 

♦ ♦ # . ♦ « ♦ * 

The Maru brought over 300 transits, and it is expected that the Peking, 
arriving on the 28th, will bring several hundred more. I have every reason 
to believe that large numbers who depart from this country as alleged mer¬ 
chants, as well as those who would otherwise seek admission as natives (sec. 6), 
and merchants’ sons are now passing through this port in transit, and I am 
cudgeling my brains for some possible system by which the detection and 
identification of such palpable frauds may be accomplished, if such is the 
desire of the Department. It is beyond the power of any individual officer to 
recall and recognize the faces or photograjihs of these people, but I have no 
doubt that nine-tenths of the alleged merchants who have been viseed as 
departing from this country and whose papers are on file in the various custom¬ 
houses are now entering as transits for Canada or Mexico, and should be turned 
back if discovered. The growth of the volume of transits is in almost exact 
comparison with the decrease in the volume of actual applicants for landing, 
and there is no doubt that our sister countries are being flooded with these 
frauds whose sole object is to cross the border and renew their activities in the 
United States. After my return from the north, if the Department so desires, 
I will overhaul all our records and files and may be able to suggest lines of 
investigation, the result of which will warrant some new regulations by the 
Department regarding transits. Of course, if the Department does not care to 
Itur.sue the subject and prevent the ultimate expense of investigating, prose¬ 
cuting, and deporting the persons who have thus fraudulently returned and are 
still to come, I shall be glad to give it no further attention. 

4: ^ # 4s 41 

(Bu. Im. No. 3225 C.) 


Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

July 16, 1901. 

Respectfully referring to Department letter No. 3225 C, undated, the subject- 
matter of which has been for some weeks under careful consideration, I have 
the honor to report that the only feasible plan appeared to be personally to 
examkie the persons and baggage of the Chinese seeking the privilege of traifsit 
through the United States, which was undertaken with all of those who arrived 
per S, S. Nippon Maru, July 8. 

Ther Nippon brought 107 so-called transits, of whom 51 sought the privilege of 
transit by rail, for whom bonds were offered, the customary requirements being 
made by the steamship and railroad companies. 

These overland transits presented each a steamer ticket and an order for a 
railroad ticket from San Francisco to the point of destination indicated on the 
steamship manifest, the number manifested to such destinations being as 


follows; 

City of Mexico_ 0 

T'orreon_ 9 

Habana_ ]4 

Gujuuas_ 19 


Immediately upon the arrival of the steamship a large force of officers were 
detailed, under my supervision, to examine these persons, taking their oral 
statements and carefully examining their baggage for the purpose of obtaining 
exact information as to their plans and intentions and evidence of their previous 
life in this country. 







ENFORCEMENT OF CtllNESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


81 


At the close of the first day this work was about half finished and disclosed a 
numl)er of suspicious cases, but, ass was feared, when the work was resumed on 
the following day every man was found to be thoroughly coached and prepared 
against incriminating admissions or evidence. 

Eleven persons out of the original 51 were held up for a careful review and 
consideration of the result of the examination, and separate reports in each of 
said cases have been made to the honorable collector of customs, with the 
r(‘quest and recommendation that they be denied the privilege of transit and 
returned to China. 

I submit herewith a brief resume of each of these 11 cases for your informa¬ 
tion. 

)(> 4: * 4: i|i 4: 

Since the above was written it has been impossible until to-day to confer fully 
with the honorable collector of customs on this subject, and in the meantime 
the 11 Chinese mentioned have been returned to China per S. S. Nlpijon Mam, 
on which they arrived. The special deputy collector agreed not to grant the 
privilege of transit, and the steamship company was duly notified that these per¬ 
sons, not having been granted the privilege of transit across the territory of the 
United States, be returned to China. Greatly to my surprise, his action was 
not challenged by the steamship company, nor would they take anj' steps to 
appeal against this action; but, on the other hand, their representative expresses 
his desire to meet me at an early date for a conference upon this whole subject, 
when I have agreed to explain all that is proper as to our attitude and to give 
such advice as is feasible in regard to the handling of the traffic. It is fortu¬ 
nate that this initial action was taken with a steamer of the Toyo Risen Kaisha, 
or the Japanese line, whose manager, Mr. Avery, is eminently fair-minded, 
courteous, and honorable in his intercourse with this office. 

4: 4: 4e 4: 4c 4c 

Of course it will be understood that the policy I have adopted will be ineffec- 
fual after sixty or ninety days, when all the Chinese passengers of this class 
will have been coached to meet the requirements, and it will then be impossible 
to find one who will admit a knowledge of the English language, or who is 
])ossessed of American clothes or other belongings, or who carries the addresses 
of American friends, or other evidence inducing the belief that they are in fact 
Chinese who have been denied admission to the United States and now seek to 
obtain a landing in this country surreptitiously after transit to Mexico, etc. 

Under these circumstances it will be necessary for us to devise nevver and 
better plans for the future, and all that I can claim for the present plan is that 
it has succeeded in the present instances. If the Department, in its wisdom, 
is satisfied that our action has been warranted by the facts and sustains us 
in denying the right of transit to those persons applying therefor whose good 
faith we have cause to question, the present evil will be greatly curtailed by 
the deterrent effect of the money loss to the Chinese promoters and transporta¬ 
tion companies, and of the fear of the Chinese to attempt this irregular means 
of entry to the United States. 

It is "but fair to say that I agree with the opinion of the collector that it will 
not be proper to rule arbitrarily against such passengers upon the mere sus¬ 
picion of their lack of good faith, but I trust the Department will support us in 
denying this privilege where there is sufficient evidence reasonably to convince 
us that the applicant for transit privileges does not intend bona fide to make his 
ultimate destination and residence in Mexico, or that he has been a resident of 
the United States, unable to reenter by lawful means, and has friends, acquaint¬ 
ances, and business expectations only in this country, and not in the country to 
which he is manifested. 

:!c,4! * * * 4* 

EVIDENCE OF FRAUD IN TRANSIT CASES. 

The following is a resume of evidence upon which denial of the 
privilege of transit through the United States was recommended in 
the case of Chinese laborers, passengers per S. S. Nippon Mavu^ July 
8. 1901 : 

Lai Lin Cheong, No. 59, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. 
This man conversed freely in English; admitted that he had been a laundrymap 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-6 



82 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


near New York City, and had departed from New York as a merchant, after¬ 
wards learning that he could not be readmitted on his bogus pampers, and now 
seeks to go to Chihuahua, Mexico; admits that his intended destination is not 
that shown by the manifest, and expresses his desire to reenter the United 
States with the cooperation of our officers; possesses merchant’s paper and 
addresses of Chinese firms in New York and San Francisco, with other papers. 

I have no reason to doubt the applicant’s intention, is to obtain admission to 
the United States by any possible means. 

Lai Kun Son, No. 61, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico, admits he 
does not know his destination, nor to what port of ^Mexico he is going; knows 
nothing of the country, but declares he will get off the cars when told so to do; 
possesses papers containing addresses of Chinese stores in Bakersfield, Cal., 
Chicago, Ill., Salt Lake City, and New York. The man’s appearance, manner, 
and testimony indicate that he has been in the United States before, and his 
ignorance of Mexico and lack of definite plans for residence there, satisfy me 
that his real intention is to obtain entry into the United States by any possible 
means. 

Choi King, No. 64, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico; possesses 
no evidence of friends or acquaintances in Mexico; has no plans or intentions 
regarding his life there; has addresses of a firm in El Paso, Tex., and a firm in 
San Francisco, also marked copy of New York Sun of Monday, April 2, 1900, 
containing death notice marked with Chinese characters. 

These facts, together with the manner and matter of the applicant’s testimony, 
warrant the belief that his sole purpose in going to Mexico is to obtain admis¬ 
sion to the United States by any possible means. 

Ling Cheung, No. 68, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, Mexico; speaks 
English; does not know wffiere Mexico is; possesses American clothes, postal 
cards, a knife, and his teeth show evidence of fine dental work, one gold 
crowned tooth being conspicuously in evidence; had an envelope addressed to 
Wing Lee, 206 Riverside avenue, Jacksonville, Fla. It is probable that this 
man was a Jacksonville laundryman denied admission at this port upon a 
merchant’s papers. 

There is no reason to doubt that this applicant has been in the United States 
before, and that his going to Mexico is merely a step toward illegal entry to 
the United States. 

Leang Quon, No. 69, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, Mexico; speaks 
English; is accompanied by a small boy who claims to be his nephew, and who 
declares that the alleged uncle is a laundryman; possesses an Elgin watch ana 
American clothes; volunteers the information that he was not registered in this 
country, although claiming to know nothing about the United States; has no 
plans, except to obtain work at Torreon, and it is evident from the manner and 
matter of the applicant’s testimony, the statements of the boy accompanying 
him, and his general appearance that he has been in the United States before, 
and seeks transit to Mexico solely for the purpose of acquiring unlawfui en¬ 
trance to the United States. 

Chin Sam, No. 70, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, Mexico; knows noth¬ 
ing about Torreon or Mexico; has no definite plans or intentions; possesses 
several envelopes addressed to Quong Sang Wah & Co., St. Louis, Mo., and is 
to all appearances coming in transit to Mexico for the sole purpose of obtaining 
clandestine admission to the United States. 

Wong Kwong Wai, No. 72, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico, 
hut declared he was going to Torreon; did not know anything about going to the 
City of Mexico, and could not tell where Torreon was located; knows no one in 
Mexico; is apparently penniless, and has no definite plans or arrangements for 
his life in Torreon; in his baggage were found lettors addressed to people in 
San Pablo and El Paso on the Mexican side. 

The manner and matter of the applicant’s testimony, the fact that he claimed 
to be going to a different point from that indicated by the manifest and railroad 
ticket, and all the circumstances connected with the case, wmrrant the belief 
that Mexico is not his ultimate destination; that he has no plans or intentions 
other than to obtain clandestine admission to this country. 

Young Sam, No. 74, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, Mexico; is possessed 
of a gold watch and other evidences of former life in the United States; among 
his effects were found an envelope addressed to himself, as follows: Young 
Sam, restaurant, Colorado City, Colo.,” also addresses of Chinese in Colorado 
City, Denver, San Francisco, Idaho Springs, and Los Angeles. 

There is no doubt that this man has been in the United States before, and as 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


83 


he has no plans or arrangements for his future in Mexico there is every reason 
to believe that his sole purpose in seeking the privilege of transit is to obtain 
clandestine entry to the llnited States. 

Yeung Kit, No. 75, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, Mexico, of which town 
he knows nothing, possesses a ticket of membership in the Gam Yee Tong 
Society, of San Francisco, showing dues paid June 17, 18!)5, and addresses of 
Chinese in Idaho Springs, Ackley, Iowa, Los Angeles, San Jose, and San 
Francisco. 

As there is no doubt that this man has been in the United States before, a 
member of a Chinese society in this city, who has probably been denied admission 
as a merchant or laborer, and knows nothing of his alleged destination, it is 
evident that his sole intention is to obtain transit to Mexico and thence to return 
illegally to this country. 

Leang Nam, No. 77, manifested and ticketed to Torreon, a boy of 11, coming 
with Leang Quon, No. 69, above mentioned; apparently being brought to this 
country to join his father; knows nothing of Torreon or Mexico; presumably 
coming with no intentions other than to accompany his uncle to the United 
States, when possible to obtain admission. 

Ho Yee Fung, No. 85, manifested and ticketed to Habana; speaks English 
very well; admits that he has been in the laundry business in New York and 
lived in San Francisco, having returned to China three or four times—probably 
one of the numerous New York laundrymen who have been denied admission to 
this port on bogus merchant’s papers; claims to be going to Habana to look for 
business. 

I have no reason to consider this application for the privilege of transit as 
made in good faith, and every reason to suspect his intention to obtain unlawful 
admission to the United States. •. 

(Bu. Im. No. 3225 0.) 

TRANSIT METHODS. 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

August 6, 1901. 

« 4c « « « * « 

I desire to express my very hearty thanks for your letter of July 30, in which 
you express “ the entire approval of the Bureau ” of my treatment of the ques¬ 
tion of Chinese passing in transit through the United States, which expression 
is greatly appreciated, because of the radical nature of the proceedings and the 
fact that I was entirely in the dark as to the view the Department would take 
of the methods and results. 

As we are all aware, there is no question as to the fraudulent character of the 
schemes by which the Chinese are steered from China to Mexico and British 
Columbia,"but it has appeared difficult to obtain direct evidence upon these 
subjects heretofore. Now that an opening has been made, I believe that much 
incriminating evidence can be obtained. It would be idle for me to repeat to 
the Department all that comes to my ears of a merely suggestive nature, and it 
would be quite improper for me to repeat confidential statements offered to me 
from time to time, and which bear upon this subject. I believe, however, that 
I cmild suggest to the proper officers who might be detailed for the purpose 
certain methods by which the entire details of these various schemes might be 
discovered. 

There is not the least doubt in the world that the Chinese brought into Mexico, 
either by boat or rail, through this port are almost invariably headed for the 
United States, with no definite intentions to reside in Mexico, and with plans 
well laid to be railroaded through after the fashion of so-called underground 
railroad of the days of negro slavery. A system of stations exists throughout 
Mexico, between the points to uhich Chinese are sent in transit and the 
American border, most of these stations being called “ restaurants,” and at all 
of which there are located Chinese or white persons for the purpose of assisting 
the immigrants from point to point. 

I transmit herewith a statement made in considerable detail by Mr. Lyman I. 
Mowry, a so-called Chinese attorney of this city, who in the past has had a very 
large practice in Chinese business, and who is now known to us, as well as to 
the Department, as one of the active attorneys thus engaged. 

^Mr Mowry is not a personal friend of mine, and, in fact, he preferred charges 
<0 the Department against me last year, and I can assure you that I do not owe 
the information received from him to any personal good will. Whatever his 


0 


% 


84 ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

motive may be I care not, although I assume that it is because the agent engaged 
by him to furnish Chinese laborers for southern Mexico was employed by the 
steamship people to promote their passenger traffic to northern Mexico. Mr. 
Mowry is recognized as the best informed man in any walk of life outside of 
the Chinese service in San Francisco upon the history and details of the Chinese 
traffic and the laws relating thereto, and has had much to do with the legislation 
affecting the Chinese in both the United States and Mexico. We consider this 
statement of Mr. Mowry as a most valuable contribution to the literature on this 
subject, and T believe the Department will find it of much interest. I would be 
glad of an expression of appreciation from the Department which I might repeat 
to him. 

While the statements made by Mr. Mowry are undoubtedly susceptible of 
fimple proof, and while his conclusions are well founded that no Chinese seek 
the privilege of transit to northern Mexico with any other expectation than that 
of coming clandestinely to the United States, and while such statements are 
borne out by other information, I realize that it is not for me to recommend 
denial of any and all such passengers, but that such unfavorable action must be 
based upon more tangible and specific evidence, to be adduced in each and every 
case, unless the Department, in its wisdom, is able to outline instructions by 
which these cases may be treated in a wholesale manner. 

* * * * * * ♦ 

STATEilENT OF ME. LYMAN MOWRY IN REGARD TO CHINESE COMING IN TRANSIT TO 
MEXICO THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

My first experienc^e with the Chinese in INIexico was in 1890, when I went 
from San Francisco to the City of INIexico to make a contract to supply 8,000 
Chinese laborers to the Tehauntepec Railroad. That road was a Government 
railroad which was to run from Salina Cruz, on the Gulf of Tehauntepec, to 
the city of Coatzacoalcos, on the Gulf of Mexico. 

When I arrived in the City of Mexico in the early part of 1890 there were 
but 20 Chinese living in the City of Mexico, and they were all from the province • 
of Kwan Sai in China. They were Chinese who had escaped from the island 
of Cuba and from certain labor contracts, upon which they had been taken from 
China to Cuba. These Chinese had intermarried with the Mexican people and 
were Mexican citizens. 

In the year 1890 I went from the City of Mexico to China to secure these 
laborers. I discovered there that under the laws of Hongkong no Chinese 
laborers could be taken to Spanish ximerica under contract. 

There were two shipments of Chinese made from IMacao in that year, one by 
the German ship Amigo of 500 Chinese laborers, and the other by the steamship 
Independent (another German vessel) of 050. Those ('hinese went to Salina 
Cruz, and after working four months the original contractor of the Mexican 
Government failed, and these men scattered themselves all over the southern 
portion of Mexico. The same year I sent 40 men from San Francisco—Chinese— 
under fishing concession on the Gulf of California, with headquarters at Altata, 
in the State of Sinoloa, the port of entry to Culican, the capital city in the State 
of Sinoloa. That fishery was abandoned in about a year. 

On my return from China, I again went to the City of Mexico, and urged upon 
the officials there the necessity of a treaty between China and Mexico to secure 
immigration into the Republic, and at that time there existed a Treasury order, 
made by Mr. Windom, Secretary of the Treasury, that no Chinese should pass 
through the port of San Francisco for Mexican ports. I went from the City of 
Mexico to Washington in the interest of the steamship companies, the railroad 
companies and my own interests, to secure a modification of that order, and 
succeeded in procuring from Mr. Foster, who was then Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, a modification which permitted Chinese to pass through San Francisco for 
Salina Cruz by water and all points south, but no points north. 

At the request of the Chinese minister, Tuey Qui Ying, and the Mexican min¬ 
ister, Sefior Romero, 1 prepared a draft of a treaty between the United Mexican 
States and the Empire of China, as a basis of negotiation, which has since 
resulted in the treaty which now exists between the two countries. 

I sent a considerable number of Chinese to Salina Cruz under that modifica¬ 
tion, but it was impossible to keep them in southern Mexico. Subsequently I 
made contracts with three distinct ])lantations to supply them with 500 Chinese 
laborers, each with wages at $1 a day Mexican, and to he employed for three 
years on these plantations. 


t 



ENFORCEMENT OF CHlNESE-EXCLtJSTON LAWS. 


85 


It must be nnclerstoocl that in Mexico there is no way of enforcing a labor 
contract, any more than there is in the United States. These contracts were to 
supply laborers in the southern part of the State of Vera Cruz, State of Oaxaca, 
and the State of Chiapas. These lands all belong to American corporations—in 
fact, the Americans have secured vast tracts of land in those three States for 
the purpose of raising rubber, vanilla, coffee, sugar, and tobacco. There is 
needed at the present time on the plantations that are now in operation, at 
least from 10,000 to 15,000 additional Chinese laborers. One of these corpora¬ 
tions constructed, under my direction, proper houses for these laborers to live 
in, with proper kitchens, etc., with all necessary sanitary arrangements. I 
shipped to that corporation a large number of Chinese from Hongkong via San 
Francisco, by the Southern Pacific, Mexican Central, and IMexican International 
railway companies, though not more than 20 ever reached the plantation. 
Although their fare was paid from Hongkong to the city of Vera Cruz—by water 
from Hongkong to San Francisco and by rail to Vera Cruz via the City of 
Mexico—we never succeeded in getting onto the plantation of the many hundred 
that were shipped over 20, and those 20 at the first opportunity left. 

My judgment is that they all came north to the United States. The induce¬ 
ment for these Chinese to come to the United States is the fact that all the 
Chinese that shii)ped came from the Province of Kwan Tong, and all the Chinese 
in the United States came from the Province of Kwan Tong, and all from three 
or four small districts—that is, from the Heung Shan district, immediately back 
of the city of Macao, from what is known as the three districts of Pun Yee, Sun 
Duk, and Nom Hoy, which comprise Canton and the country surrounding it, 
and from the four districts up the Pearl River above Canton, known as Sun 
Ning, Sun Wui, Hoy Ping, and Yin Ping, and as the tribal relation exists among 
the Chinese in its very strongest form, and every Chinaman belongs to a tribe, 
and the tribesmen are all interested in one another, every Chinamen who comes 
to Mexico has some member of his tribe in the United States, and that member 
of the tribe is drawing his tribesmen into the United States. I have no dould, 
from my experience with these people since 1890 in this immigration, that none 
of the Chinese that go to JMexico go there with the intention of remaining, 
except very few, who are engaged in mercantile transactions in that country, 
and those who act as boarding-house keepers, cooks, and waiters on the lines of 
the railroad companies leading out of the United States into the Republic of 
Mexico. 

Only last year I sent an agent to the city of Torreon, which is the junction 
of the two leading railroads out of the United States—the Mexican Central 
and the Mexican Interuational—where I knew there were 200 or 300 Chinese 
waiting to get into the United States, and offered them, through this agent, 
employment for from three to five years on the plantations in Vera Cruz with 
wages at .$1 per day and their transportation from Torreon to the plantations, 
and we offered to advance them money enough to pay their debts, as all of them 
were in debt to the boarding houses at Torreon. We did not get one laborer. 

There is no need of any Chinese laborers in northern Mexico for many 
reasons. Beginning at the west, the State of Sonora is a desert in all its 
northern portion and is only fitted for mining and grazing, except in a few small 
spots or oases. Same is the case with the State of Chihuahua, the next State, 
though Chihuahua is a much better grazing country than Sonora; but there is 
very little agricultural land in the State of (fiiihuahua excepting on the banks 
of the Rio Grande, where they take the water out for irrigation purposes. 
There is a railroad owned by the Southern Pacific Company, and connecting 
with their main line at Benson, Ariz., running through the State of Sonora 
across the line at Nogales to the city of Guaymas, on the Gulf of California. 
Large fiumhers of Chinese pass through the port of San Francisco for Guay¬ 
mas. There is very little employment for these Chinese at or near Guaymas, 
excepting fishing on the gulf. Most of these Chinese return to the line and cross. 

* The Mexican Central Railroad connects with the Southern Pacific at Ciudad 
Juarez, immediately opposite the city of El Paso, in Texas. This road runs 
],225 miles south to the City of Mexico, going the whole length of the State 
of Chihuahua, but there is no employment for Chinese in Chihuahua, and there 
are a sufficient number of Mexican Indians to perform all the labor in the mines 
and in the grazing counti-y without calling upon Chinamen. 

The wages are very much lower in northern Mexico than have been offered 
to these Chinese to work on the plantations in southern Mexico. 

The eating houses on the line of the Mexican Central Railway from the city 
of El Paso to the city of Torreon, in the eastern end of Durango, are kept by 


86 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


Chinese. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company owns a line which connects 
with their main line at Spofi'ord, in Texas, and crosses the Rio Grande in the 
State of Coahnilla at Eagle Pass, in Texas, on the Rio Grande. The city 
immediately opposite, on the same river, is Ciudad Porfirio Diaz. A large pro¬ 
portion of the Chinese who come to the port of San Francisco in transit for 
Mexico pass over this line. By an examination of the map it will be seen that 
this line from Eagle Pass, known as the Mexican International, runs through 
the State of Coahuilla into the eastern end of Durango, and crosses the Mexi¬ 
can Central at the city of Torreon, and from thence proceeds to the city of 
Durango. 

The State of Coahuilla is exactly the same in character as the States of 
Chihuahua and Sonora, being fit only for grazing purposes—that is, there being 
in spots agricultural land, but the bulk of the land is only fit for grazing. There 
is no employment for Chinese in this State. 

A remarkable thing about the Chinese going into Mexico is the fact that such 
a large proportion of them should go by way of the Southern Pacific and the 
Mexican International, because these Chinese make a voyage of over 1,000 miles 
out of their way to get into Mexico, to wit: The passage from El Paso by the 
Southern Pacific to Spofford, and by Spofford via Eagle Pass to Torreon, 
describing both sides of a right angle triangle, when they might just as well 
take the hypotenuse, through El Paso to Torreon by the Mexican Central. 

There is existing now, and has existed all this year, a contract between a 
Chinaman by the name of Ng Hok Fong, who was sent to China as my agent, 
to send Chinese to southern Mexico to work on plantations (but who has ceased 
to be my agent for more than a year), by which he receives either $15 or $20—I 
believe $20—commission per head for all Chinese sent by him through the port 
of San Francisco to Mexico, and I am credibly informed that he has already 
sent this year 2,000 Chinese laborers under that contract, none of whom were 
destined for work on the plantations in southern Mexico. 

(Bu. Im. No. 3225 C.) 

TRANSIT CASES OF JULY 25, 1901. 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

Auyusi 0, 1901. 

4c * 4: « « 4: 

I have the honor to report in the matter of Chinese in transit, both by steamer 
and rail, who arrived at this port per S. S. Coptic, .Inly 25, 1001, as follows: 

This steamer brought 98 Chinese, seeking the privilege of transit, and upon 
examination of themselves and a search of their baggage 20 were held, and 
upon investigation were denied the privilege of transit by the special deputy 
collector, on my recommendation. 

Inclosed herewith you will find a resume of the evidence in each case, which 
I trust the Department will find sufficient to warrant the action taken in these 
cases. 

¥ 4: 4: 4: 4c 4c 4: 

RflSUMf: OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH DENIAL OF THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSIT THROUGH 

THE UNITED STATES WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE CASE OF CHINESE LABORERS, 

PASSENGERS PER S. S. COPTIC, .lULY 25, 1901. 

Mah Foo, No. 18, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This man 
speaks English, which he says he learned in San Francisco, where he lived 
several years ago, and has since resided at Eagle Pass. He admits, that he 
and 5 other Chinese on same steamer are traveling on similar tickets, issued 
to the City of Mexico, but also admits that he and his friends were advised to 
secure their tickets in this manner, so that they might drop off at any place 
en route. 

From the above I am led to believe that the applicant has no intention of 
remaining in Mexico, but will seek readmission to the United States when oppor¬ 
tunity affords. 

]Mah Kwong, No. 19, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This 
man is one of six traveling on the same steamer, with similar tickets to the 
City of Mexico, and under the avowed leadership of Mah Foo, for whom he 
was to work at any place in Mexico Mah Foo indicated. 

It is clearly to be seen that this man’s real intention is not to remain in 
Mexico, but to seek admission to the United States by any possible means. 



EISTFORCEMEKT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. St 

Mali ITo, No. 20, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This man, 
although answering questions in English, denies having any knowledge of the 
language. Among his effects were found various papers and books, also a letter 
with applicant’s photograph from El Paso, Tex., addressed to a Chinaman in 
Eddy, N. Mex., postmarked “ 1894.” He admits that he had been a doctor in 
Eddy, and had returned to China in 1894 without papers, and he is now coming 
back to collect debts outstanding in Eddy; also that he worked in a laundry at 
that place, and that he is coming over with a number of others ticketed to the 
City of Mexico, all of whom expect to drop off at the most convenient place 
near the boundary line of the United States. 

These facts, together with the matter and manner of this man’s testimony, 
warrant the belief that he is coming to Mexico with the sole intention of gaining 
admission to this country at the first possible opportunity. 

Low Hill Chuck, No. 23, manifested and ticketed to Habana. This man says 
that he paid $190 Mexican for his ticket, which amount has been shown in other 
cases, similarly ticketed to Habana, to be the sum agreed upon to get the holder 
into the United States. He possessed a letter which he claimed was to be used 
as a form of letters to be sent to friends in China, the absurdity of which claim 
is afterwards shown by his admission that he can not read or write Chinese. 

The manner and matter of this man’s testimony would lead to the opinion 
that his sole purpose in going to Habana is to gain unlawful entrance to the 
United States. 

Mah Cheung, No. 21, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This 
applicant, a boy of 11, is coming with his alleg<<^a brother, Mah Foo, No. 18, who 
is the leader of a number similarly ticketed, Snd claims to be going wherever 
his brother takes him. 

As it is shown in the case of Mah Foo, that it is his intention to drop off the 
cars near the American border, it is evident that the applicant is not seeking the 
privilege of transit to Mexico in good faith, but hopes to clandestinely enter the 
United States. 

Ng Chin Nuie, No. 58, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This 
man has no definite plans or arrangements for life or employment in the place 
to which he is ticketed. He bears the same family name as the party led by 
Ng Foon Kee, No. 57, and this suspicious circumstance would tend toward the 
belief that he is seeking the privilege of transit for the sole purpose of clandes¬ 
tinely entering this country. 

Ng Ho, No. GO, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This man 
admits that he has no friends or acquaintances or plans for life in Mexico, or 
that he has any relatives on the same steamer on which he has come, but claims 
to be one of the party steered by Ng Foon Kee. When confronted by the latter, 
he admits the relationship. In his examination he attempts to mislead and 
confuse the inspector, and from the manner and matter of his testimony it is 
evident that his sole purpose in going to Mexico is to seek unlawful entry into 
the United States. 

Wong Woon, No. 62, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. The 
applicant speaks good English, although denying any knowledge of the language; 
wears an American hat; possesses a razor marked “ Northfield, Conn.,” and a 
copy of the Los Angeles Times. He has no definite plans for life in Mexico, 
and from the manner and matter of his testimony it is plainly to be seen that 
he is coming in transit to Mexico in order to secure access to the territory of the 
United States. 

Mar Chung Son, No. 66, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This 
man speaks good English, and although ticketed to the City of Mexico denies 
that that is to be his destination, but that he will drop off on the line near El 
Paso. He admits that he is one of a party similarly ticketed, but \vho all intend 
t() get off the train near El Paso. He states that he foimerly lived in San 
I'rancisco, acting as cook, and made his headquarters with a Chinese firm on 
.Tackson sti-eet, which has since gone out of existence, and that he left here 
seven years ago; that he has since resided in Chihuahua, Mexico, but can not 
speak Vi word of Spanish. He admits that he first came to the United States 
on a “ red ^certificate,” which was the common name of a laborer’s certificate of 
early times. He afterwards denied the possession of this certificate when 
informed that he could not have had legal possession of such a certificate on his 

first landing in this country. ^ ^ ^ , 

The matter and manner of this man’s testimony warrants the belief that he is 
a steerer of Chinese, and is engaged in the business of promoting illegal schemes 
by which unlawful entry is made into the United States, and in pursuance of 



88 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


this course he now seeks for himself and others the privilege of transit, with 
the sole intention of gaining admission to the United States by any possible 
means. 

Mah Sui Wan, No. 67, manifested and ticketed to the City of Mexico. This 
applicant is under the leadership of Mah Wo and Mah Chung Sue, claiming to 
he a nephew of the latter, and that he is going wherever his iincle goes. All of 
this party were ticketed to the City of Mexico, but the leaders admitted that 
they intended dropping off near the American line. 

From the above it is evident that this man’s intention is not to remain in 
Mexico, but to obtain clandestine entry to the United States when opportunity 
affords. 

Cheung Nin Hing, No. 26, manifested and ticketed to Habana. This man 
shows a knowledge of English, although denying that he speaks the language. 
He possessed paper with address of a Arm in Tampa, Fla., which he declared 
belonged to another man. This statement is denied by the other man, who dis¬ 
claims owenrshi]) of the address. The applicant claims an interest in a laun¬ 
dry in Habana, and is traveling with several others destined for the same place. 

There are indications that this man was formerly a resident of the United 
States, and the matter and manner of his testimony warrant the belief that his 
sole ])urpose in seeking, the privilege of transit to Mexico is to gain readmission 
to this country by any possible means. 

Wong Wong, No. 90, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This man 
possessed a Los Angeles pa])e^, which might indicate that he had been in this 
country at some previous time^^eHe is one of a party directed by AVong Ling, No. 
84, all of whom are ticketed tO'-Guaymas, and who admit that they are without 
definite plans or intentions. 

It is reasonable to suppose that this whole party are seeking the privilege of 
transit for the sole purpose of gaining clandestine entry to the United States. 

Chung Yui, No. 75, manifested and ticketed to Habana. The applicant claims 
that he is going to Habana without any arrangements for employment at that 
point; that he paid .$190 for his ticket, which is the amount, admitted by 
another similarly ticketed, paid to procure admission to the United States. 
Sewed in the lining of his coat is a letter, the translation of which shows that 
he and his fellow travelers, 8 in number, are to be cared for, and among his 
papers is found the address of Chong Quong, 386 Ogden avenue, Chicago, 111. 
He and his party were furnished with tickets by the same promoter in China. 

The above warrants the belief that this man’s real intention is to obtain 
illegal entry to the United States. 

Wong Yam, No. 83, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This man 
admits that he is under the leadership of Wong Ling, No. 84, who speaks Eng¬ 
lish and is directing a party of 5 (himself and four others) on the same steamer. 
He speaks and understands English, but claims to have no intentions or plans 
for life or employment in Mexico, stating that he will go wherever and do what¬ 
ever Wong Ling directs. 

The matter and manner of this man’s testimony warrants the belief that 
Mexico is not the intended destination of Wong Yam and his party, but that 
they will ultimately seek unlawful admission to the United States. 

Wong Ling, No. 84, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. The appli¬ 
cant speaks good English, and is the leader of a party of 6, ticketed to Guaymas, 
all of whom admit that they are under the guidance of Wong Ling, having no 
plans or intentions other than those directed by Wong Ling. These statements 
of the members of his party are denied by Wong Ling, and from the matter and 
manner of the applicant’s testimony I am of the opinion that he is not seeking 
the privilege of transit in good faith, but that his real intention is to gain 
clandestine entry to the United States. 

Wong Ting, No. 85, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This man 
claims to be under the leadership of Wong Ling, No. 84, who is directing a party 
of 6. He has no plans or arrangements for life in Mexico, and knows no one 
there, and declares that he will do whatever he is directed by AVong Ling. 

It is the opinion that this AA’'ong Ling has this party of 6 in his "’charge 
intending by any possible means to gain their illegal admission for them as 
well as for himself, to the United States. ’ 

AA^ong Aloon Leong, No. 86, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico 
This man is identified by the inspector and interpreter as a man who at some 
])revious time soug:ht admission to this country as a native, and was denied a 
landing. He now claims to be one of the party headed by Wong Ling No 84 


ENFOECEMENT OF CHTNESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 89 

all ticketed to Giiaymas, and admits that he has no plans or intentions other 
than to follow the directions of Wong Ling. 

The above warrants the belief that this man is seeking the privilege of tran¬ 
sit in order to obtain illegal entry to the United States. 

Wong Men, No. 89, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, INIexico. This man 
is another member of the party of Wong Ling, No. 84, who declares his intention 
to be directed entirely by the said Wong Ling, having no plans or arrangements 
for employment or destination of his own. He is identified by Inspector and 
Interpreter Gardner as a man who had been denied admission at this port in 
the past and was remanded to China, which statement is not denied by the 
applicant. 

It is very evident that this man’s sole purpose in seeking the privilege of 
transit is to gain illegal entry to the United States. 

Wong Yick, No. 91, manifested and ticketed to Guaymas, Mexico. This 
man spoke English well, and gave the inspectors the impression that he had 
been in this country before on account of his manner of speech and general 
appearance. He claims to be going to Guaymas, although having no friends 
there, and no definite plans for an occupation. States the only person he 
knows in this country is a relative named Ham Ngoon, who is coming to San 
Francisco on this ship. He appears to be of the Wong party, and his only 
intentions are to be directed by their movements. 

From the matter and manner of this man’s testimony, there is warrant for 
the belief that his sole purpose is to seek admission to the United States. 

Cheung Kow, No. 130, manifested and ticketed to Habana. This man admits 
that he is making Habana his destination for the purpose of gaining entry 
to the United States, on account of its proximity. Admits that when he paid 
$190 for his ticket, he was told that that was all that was necessary to take 
him ultimately to the United States. 

The above testimony warrants the belief that this man’s real intention is 
to obtain unlawful admission to this country by way of Habana. 

(Bu. Im., No. 3225 C.) 

NUMBER OF TRANSITS SINCE JUNE 8, 1900. 

This evil, so largely responsible for the vast numbers of Chinese 
now in this country unlawfully, although reduced by persistent 
efforts, is still extensive, as must be obvious to any one acquainted 
with labor conditions in Cuba and Mexico, who will consider the 
figures given below as to the number of transits who have passed 
through to foreign contiguous territory and the West Indies at the 
two ports of this country principally used for that purpose, during 
the last five fiscal years, and the past six months of the present 
fiscal year: 


Period. 

San 

Fran¬ 

cisco. 

Malone. 

Total. 


3,439 

1,658 

1,755 

2,090 

1,187 

578 

376 

694 

311 

252 

335 

216 

3,815 

2,352 

2,066 

2,342 

1,522 

794 

X Ofl.r GTlClcU O Uiit? X ------------- - - -- -- - 

Y 0fir 6I1Q0U. t) lllH^ ow, --- 

X GRr 6T1UGCI o UlltJ x.'Vo------- 

X Gai GI1U.GU. Ullt? x.Twr.----- 

X Gfir GTlClGCl 0 Ulit? ow, - - - - - - - --- 

olX UlOnXIlS GllClotl X-'t?C/. - - - --- - --- 



12,891 





(Bu. Im., Nos. 10389 C and 13511 C.) 

























90 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


AN ILLUSTRATION OF BAD FAITH. 

A more recent illustration, and one showing an extremely brazen 
abuse of the privilege, is found in the following case (Bu. Im., No. 
14320 C) : 

On September 27, 1905, there arrived at the port of New York, 
from Liverpool, England, one Sam Moon, alias Charlie King, who 
claimed to be on his way to the City of Mexico. He w^as in posses¬ 
sion of a through ticket to destination on the Ward Steamship Com¬ 
pany line to Oalveston, and thence by rail. The officer in charge at 
Galveston was notified of the probable date of his arrival, and met the 
steamer. The Chinaman was, or jiretended to be, quite ill from the 
rough voyage, and said he would have to stay in Galveston for several 
days to recuperate. This permission was granted, but on the day 
when he was to board the train it was found that he had hired a team, 
proceeded to a station north of Galveston and boarded a train for 
New Orleans. The inspector in charge at New Orleans was wdred. 
He met the train, arrested the Chinaman, and took him before a 
United States commissioner for trial. A continuance of the trial 
w^as granted, and, although one of the New York inspectors was 
present and positively identified the Chinaman as the man who had 
been granted the privilege of transit at that port, several witnesses 
were i)roduced who swore that the Chinaman had been working in 
a laundry at Beaumont, Tex., continuously for two years just passed 
and could not, to their personal knowledge, have been oiit .of the 
United States. He wuis thereupon released by the commissioner and 
jiroceeded on his way to Florida, in which State, it transpired, he 
liad at one time lived and conducted a laundry. Thus, a Chinese 
laborer, who had left this country without observing the requirements 
of law as to the return of domiciled merchants, gained readmission 
in spite of those laws, at the same time putting the Government to 
large expense in its efforts to defeat his unlawful attempt. More¬ 
over, as he was granted the privilege of transit, upon the claim that 
he was not a laborer, under the amendatory circular quoted on page 

-no bond was given to protect the Government so that it was not 

possilffe for it even to reimburse itself to the extent of collecting a 
money consideration on account of the Chinaman’s failure to act as 
good faith required. Thus, the least departure from a strict guard¬ 
ing of the interests of the Government in dealing with such Chinese 
results not in any feeling of gratitude on their part, but in an op¬ 
portunity welcomed by them to circumvent the inspectors and defeat 
the purposes of the law. 

(See also Senate Eeport No. 776 (Part 2), Fifty-seventh Congress, 
first session, pp. 94-95, 215-220, 237-243, and 319-321.) 



CHAPTEE IX. 


NATIVES. 

Importance of subject. Supreme court decision under which natives are 
admitted; limitation thereof; extension to other conditions. How sub¬ 
ject first attracted attention. Growth of evils; extent thereof in 1001-2. 
Practice of offering rebuttal testimony in northern New York district; 
discontinued; substituted by Canadian Pacific agreement; what accom¬ 
plished by agreement; difficulties encountered in making it effective. 
Supreme Court decisions as to propriety of administrative officers deciding 
claims of nativity. Later Canadian border conditions. Mexican border 
conditions. The issuance of passports; past practices; present practice. 
Importation of prostitutes as wives of natives; former conditions; in¬ 
crease of traffic; recent illustrations. The “ native ” in China ; consulnr 
officers’ trouble with. Number of “ natives ” admitted July 1, 1903, to 
December 31, 1905. Difference between administrative and judicial con¬ 
struction of Wong Kim Ark decision. Number of “ native ” applicants 
compared with number of Chinese married women in United States; com¬ 
pared with “ section 6 ” applicants. Berkshire’s report on number of 
Chinese claiming nativity in northern New York district. 

This is a subject of such magnitude and of such importance—in 
fact, of supreme importance—to a proper understanding of the 
Chinese situation existing to-day in this country that it is discussed 
in more detail, directly and by cross reference, than any other one 
feature of the conditions covered by the several chapters of this paper. 

SUPREME COURT DECISION, WONG KIM ARK V. UNITED STATES. 

In the first place, it seems fitting and necessary to insert the follow¬ 
ing quotation, from the Supreme Court decision on the strength of 
which Chinese are admitted to this country as citizens, or “ natives ” 
thereof: 

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong 
Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken 
away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after 
coming of age, renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of the country of 
his parents, or of any other country; for by our law, as solemnly declared by 
Congress, “ the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all 
people,” and “ any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or direction of any 
officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the 
right of expatriation is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles 
of the Republic.” (Rev. Stat.. sec. 1999, reenacting act of July 27, 1868, c. 249, 
sec. 1; 15 Stat, 223, 224.) Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, dur¬ 
ing his minority, could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would 
be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that 
his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each 
of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about 
17 -years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his 
coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by 
his actual return to the United States; and “ that said Wong Kim Ark has not, 
either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance 
to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing 
to exclude him therefrom.” 


91 


92 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLXJSION LAWS. 


The evident intention and the necessary effect of the submission of this case 
to tlie decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to pre¬ 
sent for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opin¬ 
ion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese 
descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, 
but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there 
carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity 
under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the 
United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the 
question must be answered in the affirmative. (United States v. Wong Kim 
Ark, 169 U. S., 649.) 

This decision, it will be noted, was rendered upon an agreed state¬ 
ment of facts, and the court specially withheld its opinion upon ques¬ 
tions outside of those agi'eed facts. It has been applied, however, by 
the lower court, especially by United States commissioners, to cases 
in which the facts alleged were quite at variance with those con¬ 
sidered by the Supreme Court, and the evils which have resulted, 
as is shown by the succeeding pages of this chapter, are practically 
illimitable. 

FALSE CLAIMS TO CITIZENSHIP. 

This subject of the alleged native-born Chinaman first engaged the 
attention of the Bureau of Immigration in this connection: It was 
found that as the enforcement of the law at the seaports became more 
thorough, numbers of Chinese rejected at such ports as returning 
laborers, domiciled merchants, and “ Section 6 ” applicants would 
turn up on the northern boundary as “American citizens by birth,” 
and the practice in this regard became more and more pronounced as 
the effectiveness of the enforcement at the seaports increased. For 
this reason it was recommended in the Annual Report of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General for 1901 (p. 52), that all ports for the admission of 
Chinese, except those on the seacoasts, should be closed. But as the 
Bureau’s experience increased it was found that such violations of law 
were but a ver}^ small j)art of the evil constituted by and growing out 
of the Chinese claim of American nativity. The evils have grown 
from year to year, until they are now the most serious confronting 
this country, from the standpoint of an effective execution of the ex¬ 
clusion policy, having the intent of preventing an increase in the 
laboring classes in this country and the gradual reduction of the num¬ 
ber of laborers here. Notwithstanding the fact shown later, that 
much has been accomplished in the past tivo years to remedy these 
evils, they are still extensive, and, in some respects, are increasing— 
notably the feature Avith regard to the im])ortation of prostitutes as 
the wives of natiA^es. To gain a proper appreciation of the subject it 
is essential to be acquainted not only Avith the conditions which now 
exist, but Avith those which it has been necessary to defeat in the past. 

DIFFICULTIES IN ENFORCING LAAV. 

The difficulties confronting administrative officers, in the endeavor 
to prevent violations of law by the alleged native element, are briefly 
but forcibly portrayed in the Annual Report of the Commissioner- 
General, 1902 (pp. 76-77), as folloAvs: 

As there is an express inhibition in section 14 of the act of May 6, 1882. 
against the naturalization of Chinese persons, they can only become citizens of 
this country, under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Consti- 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


93 


tution, by birth therein. The opportunity to secure fraudulent entry thus 
offered has not been overlooked, and a brisk business has grown up in conse¬ 
quence, particularly along our northern boundary, by which, through Chinese 
testimony solely, American citizens are being turned out in numbers by decisions 
of United States commissioners. Thus is accomplished a violation both of the 
C'hinese-exclusion and of the naturalization laws. As stated, this business 
thrives especially on our northern frontier, and, in the .iudgment of the Bureau, 
its existence on such an extensive scale there is attributable to the opening of 
ports on the frontier to the entry of Chinese. It is therefore plain that, unless 
some moans can be devised at an early date to counteract this evil, those ports 
which were added to the ones specitically named in section 7 of the act of Sep¬ 
tember 13, 1888, under authority given therein to the Secretary of the Treasury 
so to do, should be closed. The Bureau has now under consideration a plan 
which, if it can secure the necessary cooperation therewith, it believes will 
minimize, if not altogether end, the frauds referred to. If it fails, however, to 
secure cooperation, or, securing such cooperation, the plan should not accom¬ 
plish the purpose of its adoption, the immediate closing of the ports will be 
indispensable to an effective enforcement of the law. 

>|c ^ ^ 3): 4t 4: 

In Table XVIII there are presented figures relating to Chinese persons enter¬ 
ing the United States at points on the Canadian frontier east of Ohio. These 
persons pay no attention to the exclusive ports prescribed for the entry of Chi¬ 
nese, but enter anywhere that is most convenient for their purpose, claiming, 
as before stated, exemption from the provisions of treaty and laws on the 
ground of birth in this country. It will be seen that of the 790 so arrested and 
tried for unlawful entry but 203 were finally deported, 56 cases remaining 
undisposed of at the close of the year. This would leave some 540 who secured 
judicial sanction of their right to be in the United States, despite their mode 
of entry, and at the same time most of them obtained a record of their right 
so to continue to do under the foui-teenth amendment to the Constitution. No 
comment can emphasize the danger of such a method of conferring citizenship 
upon persons of a race which it is contrary to the expressed policy of this 
country to admit within its boundaries even as aliens. 

CANADIAN BORDER MOST AVAILABLE POINT FOR FRAUDS. 

It will be seen from the foregoing that np to the time of the publi¬ 
cation of the annual report from which the above quotation is made 
the Canadian border was the most available point for violations of 
law. As an illustration of the manner in which and the extent to 
which the Canadian border was being used as virtually “ an open 
door ” for Chinese coolies—many such examples could be taken from 
the Bureau’s files—the following is quoted from a letter from the 
inspector in charge of the New York district, dated January 3, 1901. 
(Bu. Im. file No. 2405 C.) 

Tliere are *iow in ^lontreal and Ottawa something over 700 Chinese who 
within the next ninety days, at the outside, must leave Canada. They will 
either attempt to smuggle themselves into the United States or will come over 
for arrest, to be tried on the threadbare claim that they are American citizens; 
or, failing in these two methods, they will proceed in bond through the United 
States to Mexico, and work their way north with the expectation of entering 
the United States along the Arizona and west Texas borders. While it may 
appear that but little is gained in driving the Chinese from the Canadian bor¬ 
der to the Texas border, I beg to point out to the Bureau that every obstacle 
and serious difficulty which is placed in the way of these frauds goes a long 
way toward preventing and ultimately breaking them up. When it develops 
that they are concentrating their efforts at El Paso or Nogales, the necessary 
steps can be taken to meet conditions there. (See also Bu. Im. file Nos. 11220 C, 
14299 C and Appt. Div. files, Ralph Izard papers.) 


94 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


r 


SYSTEM OF OFFERING TESTIMONY OF CHINESE IN REBUTTAL. 

In the next annual report (1903, pp. 96-102) the situation was 
again reviewed, more details of the plans pursued being given, espe¬ 
cial stress being laid upon the advantage the Chinese had over the 
(jovernment because of the right which the Chinese, but not the 
Government, possessed to appeal, if a United States commissioner 
ruled adversely in a case or claimed citizenship, and by reason, of 
the facility with which the Chinese could be coached as to the testi¬ 
mony they should give, and the inability of the Government to rebut 
such testimony. At this point it should be stated that a system had 
been in vogue in the northern district of New York by which at¬ 
tempts were made, with varying success, to offer testimony in rebuttal, 
Chinese witnesses being secured in New York City and vicinity to 
testify that they had known applicants, or their parents, in China, 
and knew the former were not born in the United States. A discon¬ 
tinuance of that practice was brought about in this way: 

In the fall of 1902 the present incumbent of the office of Com¬ 
missioner-General, having heard something of the methods followed 
in the conduct of these native cases in northern New York, accom¬ 
panied a special employee of the Immigration Service, a white man 
acquainted with the Chinese quarter of New York, and with the Chi¬ 
nese language and customs, to the home of an old Chinaman by the 
name of Ah Louie King, by whom witnesses were furnished the 
Government to break down the testimony of other Chinese in the 
native-born cases. His guide, by means of his knowledge of certain 
secret “ raps ” and of the Chinese language, gained access to the 
hovel in which Louie and his “ wife,” a young white woman, lived, 
and, although those persons were indignant at the intrusion, the 
Commissioner-General, with his competent interpreter, was able to se¬ 
cure sufficient information from Louie to show, when added to other 
facts in his possession, that for a long time the officer in charge of 
the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws in northern New York 
had been depending upon Louie to furnish the Government with wit¬ 
nesses, the arrangement being that the witnesses would get their 
transportation to and from the places where the trials were held, 
and Avould turn over to Louie $1 each out of the fees paid them as 
witnesses. These witnesses (of whom several Tvere in Louie’s room 
when the Commissioner-General visited it) would be coached by 
Louie as to the testimony they would otfer before bei^ig taken to 
the border to testify. It also developed that Louie was in the busi¬ 
ness of furnishing witnesses for the smugglers and attorneys inter¬ 
ested in the smuggling, thus doing a double business. Under this ar¬ 
rangement about 50 per cent of the Chinese would be landed and the 
remainder deported to China. Orders were immediately issued by 
the Commissioner-General for a discontinuance of the pernicious 
practice, and while the immediate result was to increase the number 
of Chinese released by the United States commissioners in northern 
New I ork, no time was lost in endeavoring to perfect an arrangement 
whereby a fairly satisfactory amelioration of the difficulties might 
be brought about. 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


95 


CANADIAN PACIFIC AGREEMENT. 

The Commissioner-General accordingly recommended to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury that all ports along the Canadian border, 
made lawful ports of entry for Chinese by the Secretary in the exer¬ 
cise of the authority conferred upon him for that purpose by law, 
should be closed unless the Canadian Pacific Railway Company 
would bind itself to deliver at certain ports on said boundary all 
Chinese passengers coming over its lines destined to the United States, 
in order that administration otficers should have the opportunity of 
passing upon the right of such Chinese to enter this country in the 
same manner that the Chinese immigrants are examined at seaports. 
The result was the execution of an agreement, dated February 23, 
1903 (quoted at pp. 100-101, An. Rep. Com. Gen., 1903), between the 
Commissioner-General and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company 
whereby the said company, in consideration of the opening of four 
designated ports on the Canadian border (Sumas, Wash.; Portal, N. 
Dak.; Malone, N. Y., and Richford, Vt.), agreed to deliver all Chi¬ 
nese immigrants destined to the United States to the Chinese inspect¬ 
ors at said jiorts, and to return to China, at the company’s expense, 
all those who were found inadmissible. 

DOCTOR Gardner’s report on canadian-border situation. 

As a still further evidence of the conditions which existed on the 
Canadian border, regarding “ natives ” especially, before this agree¬ 
ment became effectiA^e, the following is extracted from a report, dated 
May 30, 1903, covering an investigation conducted prior to said date 
by Dr. J. Endicott Gardner, an inspejctor and the chief interpreter 
at San Francisco, who, because of his extensive knowledge of the lan¬ 
guage and customs of the Chinese, was detailed to examine into the 
situation (An. Rept. Com. Gen., 1903, pp. 97-99) : 

To acquaint myself with all that might bear on the subject, I called at the 
Chinese bureau at New York and Boston, conversed with the Chinese inspectors 
and interpreters, attended the trial of cases at Ogdensburg, interviewed the 
Chinese themselves at different points in their own language, read whatever 
notices I saw in Chinese, called at their stores, schools, restaurants, and laun¬ 
dries, and at evei-y opportunity gathered what information I could on the sub¬ 
ject. 

I found that in this section of the country Chinese gain admission into the 
United States by smuggling, by applying openly through the regular channels 
as members of the exempt classes, or by surrendering themselves a short dis¬ 
tance from the border for arrest and trial, as a rule, under the guise of being 
natives of the United States. As to the first-mentioned class the number is 
being reduced, owing to the constant vigilance of our officers on both sides of 
the border. As to the second class the inspector in charge of the Brooklyn 
district, as well as the one in charge of the Boston district, I found to be good, 
efficient officers, and cases are submitted to a thorough investigation. It is the 
third class—that of the so-called “natives”—that calls especially for correc¬ 
tion. There are several points near the Canadian border, such as Malone, 
Ogdensburg, Plattsburg, and Rouse Point, where Chinese of the class last men¬ 
tioned are taken for trial. This class comprises Chinese who have come from 
China and have camped at Montreal until such time as the members of the ring 
engaged in w^orking up their defense could secure witnesses to testify to their 
alleged nativity. 

I attended the trial of several such Chinese, on whose behalf the claim of 
being natives of the United States was made, which, I was credibly informed, 
fairly illustrated the usual method of trying this kind of cases. At the time set 


1)6 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHTNESE-EXCLUSTON LAWS. 


the case of Ah Sing or some other Ah wonifl be called, and with the defendant 
absent from court throughout the whole session one other Chinese would be put 
upon the stand to testify to the defendant’s having been born in the United 
States—most likely in the Chinatown of San Francisco, the alleged birthplace 
of tens of thousands of 9 thers that have made the claim at various times and 
at various places before him. Upon the uncorroborated testimony of this one 
Chinaman the other Chinaman, awaiting the issues in jail, would be declared 
a native of the United States. This goes on week after week and month after 
month, and has been going on for years. One of the Federal judges estimated 
that if the story told in the courts were true every Chinese woman who was in 
the United States twenty-five years ago must have had at least 500 children. 
(Report of Proceedings of Chinese-Exclusion Convention, held at San Fran¬ 
cisco, November 21 and 22, 1901, p. 51.) By this method thousands of Chinese— 
upon the admission of the Chinese themselves—have been allowed not only to 
enter and remain in the United States, but declared to be native-born citizens 
thereof, each with a vote and qualified to participate in the political affairs of 
this country. 

The evil done to the Commonwealth of the United States in this phase of the 
admission of Chinese can not be overestimated. Every Chinese who is admitted 
as a native-born is entitled to a vote and to all the franchise and election privi¬ 
leges of American citizenship. Coolies who have never seen the shores of Amer¬ 
ica until they came here on a ship have been able to a.vail themselves of this 
method to enter and remain in the United States as American citizens. Coming 
here as full-grown men in a great many instances and not speaking a word of 
English, they leave our jails soon after crossing the Canadian border qualified 
to take part in elections, to dictate, so far as their municipal strength will give 
them power, the future character of our Government. There are notable excep¬ 
tions, but the character of the classes of Chinese who have been here for some 
time shows what would be their influence in public affairs if intrusted with the 
responsibilities of citizenship, or if they only exercise the influence they possess 
as voters. Chinese may be expected to vote for China whenever China should 
be an issue. On all other occasions the franchise would be converted into a 
commodity offered to the highest bidder, for the reason that no sense of its 
value or dignity is entertained. It presents a subject that goes far beyond the 
economics of labor. The very political life of our nation is affected by this 
method of admitting Chinese. 

How far-reaching the effect of such a method is can be appreciated only when 
it is borne in mind that not only ^he Chinese who may be thus admitted are 
made citizens, but also their alleged children, though born in China. (Op. 
S. T., Aug. 3, 1898.) With the same kind of Chinese testimony there is prac¬ 
tically no limit to the number that might be imported on that ground. That 
they have not as yet come forward in considerable numbers as voters is not 
a criterion by which to judge either the number eligible to vote or their inclina¬ 
tion to avail themselves of the privileges of their acquired citizenship. It is 
the nature of the Chinese to work quietly and persistently and at the right 
moment. When the number is large enough to constitute a balance of power 
the votes will be forthcoming. I know that they appreciate this, and that they 
are working quietly toward that end. As far back as 1878 Judge Sawyer, in 
the circuit court of the United States of the ninth judicial circuit for the district 
of California, denied the application of one Ah Yup for naturalization. Ah 
Yup’s was a test case. What the Chinese can not secure legitimately they have 
frequently secured by means of perjury under the false claim of being natives 
of the United States. ^ 

Wives of bona fide Chinese natives of the United'States have been declared 
to be entitled to admission. (Synopsis 22551.) Every Chinaman by having 
himself legally declared a native, though through perjury, may bring over a 
slave girl as his wife, since such commands a market price of from $2,000 to 
$3,000 in the United States. 

jMy reference to the manner in which Chinese are made citizens in the courts 
in the districts referred to above does not reflect on the commissioners or the 
district attorneys. These, from all that I have learned, are honest, con¬ 
scientious men. The evil is in the system—that of endowing one Chinese with 
the privileges of citizenship (allowing him in the country incidentally) on the 
word of only one other Chinaman. All who have had any experience with 
the way many Chinese of this class testify know how unreliable their testi¬ 
mony is. With the defendant out of court, with only one witness to testify 
to the one important fact—that of nativity—there is well-nigh no room for 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 97 

successful cross-examination, all respectable Chinese fearing to come forward 
to controvert the testimony offered in these cases. 

It is a notorious fact that this system is availed of by a ring organized to 
facilitate the admission of Chinese for pay and by means of perjury. One of 
the members of this ring goes up and down the country scouring for such 
countrymen of his as would be willing to learn the story which they are to 
testify to afterwards in court at so much per head. At the trial another mem¬ 
ber of the ring—oftener two members—sits in front of the witness to indicate 
to him, if necessary, whether or not a certain unexi^ected question has been 
answered aright. These men pose as “ interpreters ” to the attorney for the 
defendants, but their true character is a matter of common knowledge. The 
same two men, or three men, including the one going about scouring for wit¬ 
nesses, and their attorney represent about 75 per cent of all the cases tried 
near the Canadian border. There is an oi;enness about the whole matter that 
is simply astounding. The tremendous fraud is hardly disguised. The attorney 
for these people said in the hearing of Chinese Inspector Berkshire and myself, 
“ We expect 150 natives by this boat, if they all come.” If they came it would 
be safe to say the majority woidd be landed. Of a thousand that were tried 
the past year, I have been informed that about 750 were made citizens. The 
system as adopted at present at the commissioner’s court is therefore totally 
inadequate to cope with the situation. 

There is a bold defiance also about the ringleaders of this business that calls 
for severe comment. The atmosphere in that section of the country is sur¬ 
charged with this spirit and is meant to be felt by honest officers of the Depart¬ 
ment. The boast is openly made that an officer who should be so foolish as to 
oppose their business would have charges piled up against him. What bribery 
can not do they would attempt to accomplish by threat boldly insinuated. 

The prices of the trade in evading the exclusion act by means of a trial at 
court and how they are apportioned are matters of common knowledge among 
the Chinese and those charged with the duty of enforcing that law. The amount 
charged to bring a coolie from China and land him at Malone, Ogdensburg, 
Plattsburg, or any of these points, is said to be $300, divided as follows; $20 for 
the perjured testimony, $20 as commission to the middleman for obtaining the 
applicant, $20 toward what is called “ the Government interpreter’s fund,” $80 
for the attorney, and the balance for transportation, incidental expenses, and the 
members of the ring. 


STEPS IN ABATING FRAUDS. 

The two respects in Avhicli by direct means the greatest advance has 
been made in securing an enforcement of the exclusion laws which 
really excludes are: (1) The discontinuance (which, let us hope, may 
be permanent) of the wholesale certification of coolies as members of 
the exempt classes, a state brought about by the persistent and ever- 
increasing activity of immigration officials in detecting and showing 
up such frauds (see chapter on exempts, p. 51) ; and (2) the ar¬ 
rangement above alluded to between the Commissioner-General and 
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. What was accomplished by 
the agreement is thus stated in the annual report of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General, 1904 (p.138) : 

The contract was therefore resorted to, and under its terms all Chinese per¬ 
sons destined to the United States have been brought through Canada under 
guards and delivered at some one of the four exclusive ports of entry on the 
boundary to Bureau officers for inspection by the latter. These Cliinese pas¬ 
sengers are comfortably housed in suitable buildings, tented and furnished by 
the Government. Their expenses while awaiting a decision as to their right of 
admission to the United States are borne by the Canadian Pacific Railway Com¬ 
pany, which company also returns to China at its ex])ense those who are finally 
adjudged to be inadmissible to this country. 3'his plan has now been tried for 
a period of more than twelve months, and, despite many delays and discourage¬ 
ments, has been found to accomplish its inirpose satisfactorily. At the present 
time there are but a very few Chinese coming to this country by way of Canada. 
The detention houses at the ports mentioned are almost empty. That jails in 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-7 



98 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXOLUSION LAWS. 


the counties bordering on Canada, which for past years have been crowded 
beyond their capacity with Chinese prisoners who had entered this country from 
the Dominion in disregard of the law, contain only a few arrested for unlawful 
residence In the United States, and the public appropriations have been relieved 
of the enormous burden of maintaining and deporting such Chinese immigrants. 
It is difficult to overestimate the practical advantage to a successful enforcement 
of the law that has thus been secured. No Chinese person from China can 
enter the United States through Canada without submitting to an examination 
by Bureau officers, and only a few of those Chinese residing in Canada will 
resort to smugglers or to unlawful crossing since the Dominion has imposed an 
admission tax of $500 per head on those who may lawfully enter her territory. 
This result, however, was not accomplished without much patience and persist¬ 
ence on the part of the Bureau officers, whose work in this direction was made 
effective by the admirable and unstinted support of the Department of Justice. 
As the principal means of destroying the usefulness of the new arrangement for 
border inspection, Chinese passengers brought to the detention stations were 
instructed to claim American citizenship on the ground that they were born in 
the United States, and then to refuse to answer any other interrogatory of the 
administrative officers. As the latter were then compelled to deny such alleged 
citizens admission because of lack of evidence to substantiate their claims, 
recourse was had to habeas corpus and trial before some commissioner of a Fed¬ 
eral court, acting as referee. This plan if successful would have restored the 
condition with all of its attendant abuses which existed before the contract was 
made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. 

DIFFICULTIES OF CARRYING OUT PURPOSES OF CANADIAN PACIFIC 

AGREEMENT. 

As intimated in the above quotation, the results attained by the 
agreement were not accomplished without having to meet and over¬ 
come the most persistent efforts of the Chinese smugglers and 
attorneys to defeat the purposes of the law and render ineffectual the 
means resorted to with a view to obtaining a satisfactory grip of the 
situation. It would not be possible within the scope of this chapter 
to give an adequate description of the subterfuges and schemes 
adopted by Chinese and those interested in importing them to bring 
about a return to the former conditions favorable to landing coolies 
in unlimited numbers in this country, in direct violation of the spirit 
and intent of the laws. The following extracts from the report of 
the inspector in charge of the New York district for the fiscal year 
1904 will give some slight idea of the obstacles thrown in the way of 
administrative officers: 

At the beginning of the last fiscal year, which was also.the time I assumed 
charge in this district, the detention station at Malone was opened for the pur¬ 
pose, if possible, of preventing the practice, which has been in vogue in this 
district for some years, of Chinese walking over the boundary line, submitting 
to arrest, then alleging nativity. How well the detention station has succeeded 
in doing away with this practice is best explained in the table showing the 
transactions at the port of Malone, which table is made a part of this report and 
marked “ Schedule A.” The table referred to shows that a majority of the 
applicants at Malone were of the alleged native-born class of Chinese, and, in 
order to prevent an inquiry into their claims, attorneys interested instructed the 
applicants to say nothing to the inspectors when they were examined, and their 
instructions were so completely carried out it was frequently found difficult to 
even get their correct names. At first, writs of habeas corpus were allowed by 
the circuit court, and some hundred and odd cases were referred by the said 
court to a referee to take testimony as to the claim of citizenship. It was con¬ 
tended by the attorneys for the Chinese that the immigration officials did not have 
authority to act in cases where citizenship was alleged, but to test the question 
the Government made a return to a writ of habeas corpus and insisted that the 
courts did not have jurisdiction when a Chinese person made application for 
admission to the United States at a regular port of entry. The matter was 
properly presented to Hon. George W. Ray, United States judge for the northern 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLtJSION LAWS. 99 

district of New York, and the said judge, on the 1st day of December, 1903, in 
a comprehensive opinion, held, in the case of Sing Tuck et al., that the immi¬ 
gration officials had the right to pass upon this class of cases, and remanded 
the applicants to our custody. This decision was appealed to the circuit court 
of appeals and there reversed. From the circuit court of appeals the case was 
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari, and 
that court, on April 25, 1904, reversed the circuit court of appeals. 

Every scheme known to the ingenuity of attorneys and Chinese of long experi¬ 
ence in this class of cases was used in an attempt to make the detention station 
at Malone a failure. The charge of illegal detention, of illegally holding the 
mails, of illegally preventing interviews with alleged clients, and any statements, 
of officials connected with the service in and about Malone which could be per- 
^'erted to show, if possible, that administrative officers were adverse to the 
admission of Chinese, whether right or wrong, were brought out during the year 
in the various proceedings in court. 

During the time the Sing Tuck case was pending in the various courts the 
attorneys interested, seemingly thinking they would in the end be able to defeat 
the contention of the Government, caused to be brought from China something 
over 200 more of the same class, and to meet the emergency it became necessary 
in November, 1903, to rent temporary quarters at Malone in which to detain the 
number we were unable to accommodate in the detention station in that place. 
With the large number detained, the peculiar characteristics of the Chinese, 
and our inability to compel them to take proper exercise, it was but natural 
that there should be some sickness. Much to my regret, there were 17 deaths 
during the year. Finally, however, on the 21st day of June, 1904, or wdthin 
six days of a year from the date the first Chinaman arrived at the detention 
station, we disposed of all the alleged native Chinese, returning to China all 
who were in the detention station at that time, with the exception of 20, who 
were transferred to the jail at Malone on an order of court. 

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF CASES. 

The foregoing, especially the latter part of the quoted matter, 
furnishes a reasonable basis for calculation as to how much truth 
there is in the claims of Chinese immigrants that they are natives. 
Doubtless nearly all of those who were successfully rejected and 
returned to China by administrative officers, under the methods of 
investigation and examination possible in an administrative consid¬ 
eration of their cases, would have been declared natives of this coun¬ 
try if their cases could have been heard by United States commis¬ 
sioners with the attendant opportunities for coaching and the privi¬ 
lege of appeal to the district court if adverse decisions were rendered 
by commissioners, thus doubling the chances to manufacture evidence 
and coach witnesses. The propriety of having administrative officers 
pass upon the claims of aliens to American citizenship, and the 
methods adopted by the administrative officers in these Chinese 
cases, have received the approval and sanction of the Supreme Court 
in the case of United States v. Sing Tuck (194 U. S., IGl), and again 
in the case of United States v. Ju Toy (198 U. S., 253) ; so that 
feature of the proposition may be regarded as settled finally and con¬ 
clusively. The last-mentioned case has been the subject of much 
severe comment, as an illustration of the unfair way in which even 
the courts of this country treat Chinese, but persons who so use it 
evidently lose sight of the fact that, as rendered, the decision does 
not relate to Chinese as such, but to aliens in general. In otlier 
words, the Supreme Court in said decision approved of treating 
Chinese exactly as other aliens are treated when they set up the claim 
of American birth; for administrative officers have for years been 
passing upon the claims of aliens of other races who apply at ports 
of this country. 


100 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


REPORT OF SPECIAL ATTORNEY LOTT. 

As showing the difference between examinations conducted by 
administrative officers and those held before commissioners, the fol¬ 
lowing copy of a report, dated Sejitember !28, 1903, made by a special 
attorney of the Department of Justice, who at the request of the 
Commissioner-General, was detailed to observe the methods pursued 
in the northern district of New York, is of such interest that it is 
inserted in toto: 

September 28, 1003, 

Sir : In response to your direction of September 21 I proceeded to Malone, 
N. Y., and was present at the taking of the testimony on September 23 and 24 
by Referee Wells, appointed by the United States courts for that district to 
take and report the evidence in the matter of the application of certain Chinese 
persons for writs of habeas corpus to secure their discharge from the immigra- 
ti >n officer at that station, by whom they are held awaiting deportation to 
China. While there I witnessed the receipt and examination by the immigra¬ 
tion officers of about GO Chinese who arrived at that station on September 22, 
seeking admission to the United States. I respectfully report my observations 
and make the following suggestions: 

1. Relative to the taking of the testimony. 

In order to. a clear understanding of these proceedings, I deem it proper to 
detail briefly the methods largely employed in the unlawful bringing of Chinese 
persons into the United States through the port of Malone. 

The principal factor in the bringing in of Chinese is the Chinese “ broker,” 
so-called, resident in the United States. The principal motive is gain—a Chi¬ 
nese laborer landed here having a commercial value of several hundred dollars. 
When it is desired to bring in a Chinaman, whether a relative or other person, 
the person so desiring his bringing in goes to the “ broker,” makes known his 
wish, and either pays or secures to the “ broker ” the cost of the undertaking. 
Or the broker may bring in the Chinese person on his own account, knowing 
full well that such person, under Chinese custom, is bound to repay him not 
only the expense incurred thereby, but to recompense him as well for his serv¬ 
ices. The person in China is instructed to have his photograph taken and to 
forward it to his relative or the ” broker.” The “ broker ” proceeds to find 
some convenient “ father ” or “ uncle ” who has been resident in the United 
States for a long period of time, in order that, at the appropriate time he may 
appear and identify his alleged ” son ” or “ nephew ” as a person born in the 
United States. As soon as the proper witness for this purpose is found, he is 
coached as to the questions likely to be put to him, and as to the answers he 
shall make. He is furnished the photograph taken in China, in order that he 
may study it carefully, to the end that he may the more readily identify the 
person seeking admission and whom, generally, he has never seen.' 

The Chinaman coming to the United States is likewise given a course of 
training as to the questions he will likely be called upon to answer by the 
immigration oflicer. The questions he is trained to answer are but two or 
three—his name, sometimes his age, and that he was born in the United States. 
Further he refuses to answer. Having furnished no proof that he is entitled 
to enter the United States, he is ordered deported. Then follows the applica¬ 
tion, by regularly employed attorneys, for writs of habeas corpus. In the 
Malone jurisdiction the applications are granted, a return is made to the writ, 
generally a referee is appointed to take the testimony and report to the court 
the testimony taken, with his conclusions. 

Up to the time of the granting of the writ of habeas corpus the lawyers for 
the Chinese and their interpreters are not permitted to see those held in the 
detention station, but as soon as the application has been granted the court 
orders the immigration officers to permit the lawyers and their interpreters 
to visit the Chinese. This furnishes the opportunity to perfect the fraud, and 
it is speedily availed of. The lawyers, with their interpreters, visit the person 
seeking admission, talk with him and drill him in what he is to say and do, 
note any marks or scars upon or about his face, or any other peculiarities, and 
report these very carefully to their witness. With this information, aided by 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


101 


the photograph, the witness generally, but not always, is able to identify his 

son ” or “ nephew ” when put upon the stand for that purpose. If there is still 
any doubt as to the ability of the witness to identify his offspring the wit¬ 
ness is placed in charge of an interpi’eter who knows the person he is to identify 
“son” or “nephew” when put u])on the stand for that purpose. If there is 
still any doubt as to the ability of the witness to identify his offspring the wit¬ 
ness is placed in charge of an interpreter who knows the person he is to identify 
and who, when the “ offspring ” is brought before the referee for the hearing 
of his application, points out to the father his “ child ” or “ nephew; ” if this 
is defeated more brazen methods are employed. In one instance, where the 
officers had eluded the witness when bringing in the, alleged “ son,” and there 
was grave doubt as to his ability to identify, one of the interpreters brought 
the witness into the room where the son was sitting and where the referee was 
engaged in hearing testimony and in the presence of all deliberately pointed 
out to the witness the person he was expected to identify; and all these things 
are being done with the full knowledge and connivance of the attorneys for the 
Chinese, while practicing in the Federal courts of that district. 

It is but fair to the referee, Mr. Wells, to say that he has taken into con¬ 
sideration and made note of all such occurrences when they came under his 
observation, but it does not appear that the court has conferred upon him the 
powervto make the proper orders to prevent the abuses here detailed. 

It seems unnecessary to say that quite a number of Chinese, by means of these 
disgraceful methods, wrongfully secure admission to this country. I believe 
it to be but fair to the Government, to the immigration officers, and to the 
referee chosen to take and report the testimony, that these practices be brought 
to the attention of the court granting the applications for the writs, in order that 
he may confer upon his officer the power to make and enforce such orders as 
will put an end to them, and thus secure to the Government a fair hearing in 
this class of cases. In view of the methods in vogue, the hearings before the 
referee become largely a travesty on justice. The acts of the attorneys are 
open and of the most brazen character. I had full opportunity to observe Mr. 
Wells and to note his rulings upon he hearings; I believe him to be thoroughlj^ 
upright and honest, and that if given the authority, he will put an end to the 
frauds and impositions practiced in these proceedings. 

As a remedy, I suggest that the district attorney be instructed to file with the 
referee a motion or request to the effect that, in the hearing of the cases before 
him, he require the identifying witness to go to the detention station (less than 
KX) feet from the place of holding the hearings), and in his presence and in the 
presence of counsel pick out the person he is to identify; and that in case 
counsel for the Chinese or their interpreters by any means convey to any wit¬ 
ness information as to the person to be identified, they shall thereafter be 
excluded from the room in which the identifications are being made. If the 
referee be of opinion that he has no authority to make and enforce such an 
order, that he be retiuested to forward the motion to the court so appointing 
him, in order that the court may make such order upon the request as to him 
may seem proper. 

In no other way can the Government hope to secure a fair hearing upon these 
application?. 

II. As to the examinations before the immUjration officers. 

As above stated, I witnessed the receipt and examination of about 60 Chinese 
who applied for or intended to secure admission to the United States. A few 
of these were in bond bound for Cuba, a few were returning laborers provided 
with return certificates, and the remainder—perhaps 45—were seeking to enter 
upon the pretended claim that they had been born in the United States. Of 
these the greater number refused to answer any question put to them other than 
to give their names and, in some instances, their age. If you were to ask them 
where they were born (a question they had been coached to answer) they would 
instantly reply, “ In the United States;” but if you put to them the question, 
“ Upon what do you base your right to enter the United States,” you would wait 
in vain for an answer. These persons are not shrewd enough to fix up a story 
that will hold water, that duty being left to the ever handy “ father ” or omni¬ 
present “ uncle.” 

It is difficult to view with patience the frauds that are being practiced upon 
the Government in securing the admission of Chinese to the United States at 
the port of Malone. The immigration officers at that port are very efficient, and 
are doing all they can to stop the fraud, but they are practically helpless. The 
Chinese appear before them, refuse to answer any questions, and are ordered 


102 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


deported; then follows the application to the court, the issuing of the writ of 
habeas corpus, and the appointing of a referee to take testimony, without power 
to make or enforce an order designed to secure fair, unperjured, and unpur¬ 
chased testimony. The result is that many are admitted upon testimony that 
is wholly manufactured. 

I am told that in making return to the writ it has not been the practice to 
attach thereto a copy of the examination of the applicant by the immigration 
officers. I would suggest that in the future this always should be done. 
Further, in but few cases, upon being denied admission by the immigration offi¬ 
cer, does the applicant take an appeal to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
as provided by law. Whenever such a person applies for the writ of habeas 
corpus, without first applying to the Secretary, the return of the writ should 
show that fact. With these facts set out in the return, the officer should ask 
for a dismissal of the writ upon the return thus made. This will not only 
forcibly bring to the attention of the court the fact that the writ is being used 
as a means to perpetrate systematic frauds upon the Government, but it will 
further suggest that, in thus issuing the writ and rehearing the cases without 
rirst requiring the taking of the appeal to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
as provided by statute, the courts are not only impliedly sanctioning the course 
pursued by the Chinese in refusing to furnish any information to the immigra¬ 
tion officers, but are, in large degree, usurping the functions of such officers. 

If, after this has been done, the Federal courts for that district still insist 
upon retrying these cases in face of the fact that the Chinese have refused to 
pursue the remedy provided them by Congress, the only way I can think of to 
put a stop to the gross frauds now being practiced there is to close the port of 
Malone and to require all Chinese to be sent to the port of Richford, Vt., in 
which district, I am advised, the court has held that it is for the immigration 
officers to hear and pass upon the merits of such applications, and that the 
court will not review the action of such officers upon a writ of habeas corpus, 
even where a claim of citizenship is made. It is this ruling of the Federal 
court for the district of Vermont that makes the port of Malone so popular with 
the Chinese unlawfully seeking to gain admission to the United States. 

In conclusion, I beg to suggest further that at Malone there is a rich field for 
the services of an efficient secret service operative to gather evidenc upon 
w’hich to base prosecutions for violations of the criminal sections of the Chinese 
exclusion laws. 

Respectfully, John L. Lott, 

Special Assistant Attorney. 

The Attoeney-Genebal. 


OTHER SUBTERFUGES. 

Although the advantages derived from the Canadian Pacific 
agreement, as hereinbefore pointed out, have been so extensive and 
have resulted in such vast improvement in the Canadian border 
“ native ” situation, it must not be imagined that the Chinese and their 
attorneys, even after being beaten in every effort to deprive adminis¬ 
trative officers of jurisdiction and rendering null and of no effect the 
arrangements the Government had made to insure the admission of 
only such Chinese as were lawfully entitled to enter this country, 
had yet exhausted their supply of plans and subterfuges to bring 
coolies into the United States. There are still in Canada a consider¬ 
able number of Chinese laborers who entered that country prior to 
the imposition of a head tax by the Canadian government of $500 on 
every Chinaman landed on her shores, and who are always glad to 
gain access to the United States. Moreover, there are two lines of 
railroad in eastern Canada which are not controlled by the Canadian 
Pacific Company. From both of these sources material is gained 
with which the attorney and the smuggler may still carry on their 
operations to a considerable extent. The two eastern railway lines 
have been used in two ways. Chinamen are brought across the 
Pacific in bond to Newfoundland or Liverpool, England, even, and 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


103 


after reaching Newfoundland their names are changed and they are 
reshipped over one of the eastern lines, again in bond, but this time 
to the United States. They are then brought to some point near the 
boundary, such as Lacolle, Province of Quebec, and conducted across 
the boundary into the United States, always at some other point than 
a port of entry for Chinese, and upon being apprehended by Chinese 
inspectors set up the claim of nativity and follow a line of action 
similar to what was formerly the practice with all such Chinese, their 
attorneys having witnesses on hand coached and instructed for the 
purpose of proving nativity. The other plan is to come by the Suez 
Canal route from Hongkong to Liverpool, and thence to Nova Scotia 
or Newfoundland, from which point the route is the same and the 
practice, also, as with those just mentioned. A few Chinese, also, are 
known to have been brought from Mexico and into the United States 
by the Lacolle route. 

Cowley’s report on Canadian border. 

In December, 1905, a special officer of the Bureau of Immigration, 
Inspector C. O’C. Cowley, was detailed to northern New’ York to 
investigate these operations. On December 9, 1905, he submitted the 
following report: 

Pursuant to Bureau letter of November 22, No. 14299 0, in which reference is 
made to the conversation had by me with you upon the occasion of my last visit 
to the Bureau, I visited northern New York points and Montreal for the purpose 
of investigating the circumstances and conditions surrounding the bringing into 
the United States courts through Lacolle, Canada, of the large number of alleged 
native-born Chinamen surrendering themselves for arrest at Rouses Point since 
September 26 last, and the following report is respectfully submitted; 

Incidentally, I learned that what I will term as the “ Boston-Plattsburg steer¬ 
ing gang,” through-, as spokesman, and-and-and a relative 

of- as sureties, have been endeavoring to secure the consent of the Allan 

State Line officials and the Dominion Steamship Company to carry Chinese from 
Liverpool, England, through Lacolle, Canada, into the United States courts. 

This “ Boston-Plattsburg ” gang is composed of Attorney-and ex-Inter- 

prehftr-, of Boston, and Attorney-, of Plattsburg. The last named 

has long been connected with Chinese cases in the northern district of New 

York, and - was notorious as a Chinese smuggler and attorney four or 

five years ago in the Vermont and in the New York districts. - was dis¬ 

missed from his position as United States Chinese interpreter on charges of 
gross corruption six or seven years ago, and afterwards indicted and prosecuted 
in the United States courts. 

The plans of this particular gang, in so far as they related to bringing in 
Liverpool Chinamen, were frustrated by the refusal, be it said to their credit, of 
the steamship lines plying between Liverpool and Canada to transport these 
candidates for American citizenship. 

That this gang succeeded in getting Chinamen from Mexico into the United 
States courts through Lacolle w’as made clear to me by the Canadian collector 
of customs at Montreal, upon whom I called in company with Commissioner 
Clark to get some exact knowledge of the operations of this gang. 

The collector stated that $1,000 had been deposited with him by one - 

-, for the departure from Canada, through Lacolle, of two Chinamen, 

Vnamed Wong Hing and Wong Yick, who arrived at Montreal, via the Elder 
Dempster Line, from Mexico ex steamship Dahomey, on October 2.3 last. The col¬ 
lector exhibited the customs manifest to me, and as evidence of the fact that 
the Chinamen had crossed to the United States over the Lacolle border, he 

stated that he had returned this $1,000 deposit to Mr. - on November 13 

last. Mr. -’s connection as surety with the Boston-Plattsburg gang is not 

lacking, inasmuch as he is-’s brother-in-law. 

The Elder Dempster Line is a foreign corporation over which the United 
States Government can exercise no control, and the railroad fare over the Grand 


/ 
















104 ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

I 

Trunk Railroad from Montreal to Lacolle is but a dollar, so that the business 
does not appeal to the last-named company. The Grand Trunk Company 
refuses to sell tickets at Montreal to Chinese destined to the border, but they 
are forced to accept such as are routed over their line, or the tickets may be 
purchased by the steerers and handed to the Chinamen. 

During my conversation with the Canadian Pacific Railway representative at 
Montreal he informed me that his company considered that they were fully 
relieved of their obligations under their agreement with the Bureau in trans¬ 
porting bonded Chinamen out of Canada through the port of North Sydney, 
Nova Scotia, to the separate federation of Newfoundland. I thereupon found, 
upon an examination of the company’s manifests, that the following Chinamen 
had been transported under bond from Hongkong through Canada to St. Johns, 
Newfoundland: 

May 10, 1905. —Hung Kwon, Hung Tick Ho, Hung Ting. 

August 23, 1905. —Yum Wang Chit. 

September 20, 1905. —Tam Yan, Tam Pack, Tam Hin, Leung Chin, Leung Yum, 
Chang On, Ip Yuen Sum, U Cheung, Woo Woon Lum. 

October 18, 1905. —Yan Chai Foon. 

The routing east of the Canadian Pacific Railway’s terminus at Montreal was 
described by this representative. These Chinamen were turned over to the 
Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, an agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway 
accompanying them to the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway at Nortli 
Sydney, Nova Scotia, in order to secure a release from their bond obligations 
to the Canadian Government upon the departure of these Chinamen from that 
port for Port Aux Basques, Newfoundland, and St. Johns, via “ Reid Newfound¬ 
land Company Railway and Steamship Systems.” 

The Bureau will note that, besides the tw^o Chinese steered from Mexico to the 
Lacolle-Rouses Point border, 14 were manifested from China direct over the 
Canadian Pacific Railway to Newfoundland. As soon as this gang has com¬ 
pleted its bonding and other arrangements these Chinese return -to North 
Sydney, the Canadian port of entry, by the same route, the sureties and not the 
Chinamen supplying the names for this purpose, so that the names undergo a 
change, and they are rebonded, but this time over the Intercolonial Railway, 
from the last-named port to Lacolle, via the Grand Trunk from Montreal to 
Lacolle. 

The Canadian collector at Montreal also furnished me with the valuable 
information, taken from his manifests, that just 14 Chinese had arrived at 
North Sydney during the past few months destined to Lacolle, the North Sydney 
collector, through an oversight, neglecting to require bonds in the cases of the 
following three: Leong Gan, Leong Chee, Moy Yuck Lin, who have probably 
since passed through Lacolle, as that was their given destination; and further 

that Attorney -, of Plattsburg, N. Y., and Attorney -, of Boston, 

Mass., had deposited $500 with him, the Montreal collector, for each of the 
following 11 Chinamen, $5,500 in all, as a guaranty that they would pass from 
North Sydney, Nova Scotia, out of Canadian territory through Lacolle to the 
United States, and that this money was later returned to the sureties upon the 
said Chinamen passing over the imaginary border line between the Canadian 
port of Lacolle and the United States port of Rouses Point in the company of a 
Canadian customs inspector. 

“ Customs-Canada, 

‘‘Porf of Montreal, Dec. 5, 1905. 

“ Chinese persons from North Sydney for Lacolle: Chin Buck and Chin Do 
Toy, Wing Gow Moy and Wong Gow Toy, Wong Yen and Wong Kway, Wong 
Wee and Wang Hong, Wong Chee, Gwon Quon and Gwon Hand.” 

(Besides the two from Mexico.) 

Briefly summed up, we have 14 Chinese from China, via Vancouver, North 
Sydney, and Newfoundland, entering the United States, via the Intercolonial 
and Grand Trunk railroads, at Lacolle, where they are arrested by Chinese 
Inspector D’Arcy, whose duty it is then to acquaint Assistant United States 
Attorney Owen, at Port Henry, by telegraph, of the fact that he has arrested the 
Chinaman. The assistant attorney then instructs the inspector to proceed to 
Port Henry and make complaint before the United States commissioner in that 
city, which he does, and the Chinamen are lodged in the county jail, there to 
await trial. 

Dates for trying these “ double-barrel ” cases, as they invariably arrive in 
couples, are set by the United States commissioner from time to time, and on 
the day of hearing (I visited the last hearing, held on December 2), Attorney 





ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


105 


- and his crooked Chinese assistant, -, appear with witnesses, one 

for each “ double barrel ” case, who have been taught to swear that the two 
defendants were born to their sisters in the United States twenty-four and 
twenty-five years ago. No corroborating witness is presented, nothing beyond 
the bald statement of the alleged uncle. This is what is called establishing a 
prima facie case for these candidates for American citizenship. The Govern¬ 
ment relies absolutely upon the ability of the assistant attorney to break down, 
upon cross-examination, the short story which the alleged uncle recites with 
closed eyes, occasionally opening them when in doubt and to receive a signal 

from the crooked -, as the writer observed. The district attorney asked 

the uncle how he identified the alleged nephew, concerning whom he was testify¬ 
ing. The uncle smiled foolishly, but made no reply. Finally he glanced toward 
-, and the latter placed his finger on his upper lip. The response came in¬ 
stantly that the uncle identified the alleged nephew l)y a mark on his upper 
lip. The uncle in this case had forgotten this detail of his lesson. 

To be more correct I should say that the Government relies wholly upon the 
district attorney’s ability to impeach the witness on cross-examination suf¬ 
ficiently to satisfy the commissioner. The case is-thereupon submitted, and the 
the Government can not appeal. 

I also learned in the course of my investigation that another crowd of 
smugglers, which I will designate as the “ New York-Plattsburg ” gang, and 

which is composed of Attorney - (formerly associated with -), and 

-, both long identified with the perjuries attending the admission 

of Chinese coolies as American citizens through the courts, as the Bureau has 
been for many years aware, have been and are now attempting to complete con¬ 
nections by which Chinamen may be brought direct from China, through New¬ 
foundland and Lacolle, to the United States commissioner at Port Henry. This 

is manifested by the interest displayed by - and -, of the “ Boston- 

Plattsburg ” gang, in the activities and movements of - recently, and by 

the fact that-will visit China within the next few weeks. 

At present this gang is bringing resident Vancouver, British Columbia, China¬ 
men into the commissioner’s court at Port Henry, through Lacolle, having had 
about 18 cases during the past few months. 

The third gang, which may be called the “ Boston-iMalone ” gang, is composed 

of smuggler-, of Boston, and lawyer-, of Malone, N. Y., the Chinese 

member being unknown as yet. It is the movements of-between Malone, 

New York City, and Montreal of late, and his friendship for-, which have 

attracted attention to this gang. 

* * ' * « * ♦ * 

It is not a question of admitting Chinese coolies as such. 

It is the outrageous practice of endowing them with what are practically 
naturalization papers, since the United States commissioner’s court discharges 
certify that they have been born in the United States. 

True, no one would believe the statements of these Chinese to that effect, but 
the discharge certificate is prima facie evidence of their birth in the United 
States, and where is there a court that will go beyond that finding, unless the 
bona fides of the certificates themselves, as they are so often manufactured and 
forged, or of the wrongful possession of the holder of them, as they are so fre¬ 
quently sold, and pawned, and loaned, can be established? 

What a gruesome situation it is, to be sure, that confronts the American 
people, having their most sacred right, that of citizenship, so burlesqued. 
There is a remedy for this, at least a temporary one; but it is to be hoped that 
the diseased and criminal and paupers of other nationalities, equally as ignorant 
of our language and customs as the Chinese, will not resort to similar measures 
to gain entry, by surrendering themselves for arrest at Lacolle, and thereafter 
producing another alien, also ignorant of the language and speaking through an 
interpreter of his own race, to swear that the applicant, his nephew, was born 
in the United States and left it at a tender age. 

Permit me to give you a specific instance of how people not thoroughly 
conversant with the methods of Chinese applicants and their attorneys and 
crooked Chinese assistant interpreters and missionaries may be misled. The 
practice has obtained until recently to drive the Chinese applicants in a wagon 
from Lacolle (the Canadian railroad station just outside of the United States, 
where they are ejected from the train) to the boundary line, where they alighted 
from the wagon, stepped over the imaginary boundary line, and again entered 
the rig to be driven through the country to Rouses Point, in all a distance of 
about 5 miles, in the severe winter. A railroad transporting them ov«r the 


















106 


ENFOBCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


line or a Chinese inspector permitting a Canadian customs inspector to work 
in conjunction with an American livery-stable keeper would be considered 
particeps to the crime of smuggling under the provisions of law. The practice 
of wagoning these Chinese has been stopped under Inspector D’Arcy’s statement 
that he would attempt to enforce section 8 of the act of March B, 1903. The 

result will be, if Attorney - carries out a threat which he made in my 

presence, and which he prefaced with a reference to the “ recent trouble ” and 
the “ boycott,” that the stopping of this practice of wagoning will be character¬ 
ized as inhumane, and the inspector obeying the law will be charged, infer- 
entially at least, with brutality, a living Chinaman with frost-bitten feet and 
ears probably being in-oduced as an exhibit. 

And all of this for the reasons which I have given you, notwithstanding the 
fact that the Department permits the Chinese to ride in trains into its well- 
equipped detention station at Malone, N. Y., to establish their claims to American 
citizenship. 

« * * 4c * * 

The Boston-Plattsburg gang, already in operation, steered 14 of these Chinese 
candidates through Lacolle, with the assistance of the Intercolonial Railway, 
which is operated by the Canadian government, two more, with the aid of . 
the Elder Dempster Line, a foreign corporation over which the United States 
can exercise no control, and more of these candidates are expected by the gang, 

and the-combination will also be in full operation shortly 

on bonded Chinamen from China, besides handling the Vancouver Chinamen 
whom they are now steering through Lacolle. 

In the cases of the unbonded Canadian resident Chinamen steered from 
Vancouver, British Columbia, through Lacolle to Port Henry, the designation 
of the commissioner at Malone, or of commissioners located elsewhere than Port 

Henry, would prove embarrassing to - and -. This is the remedy 

that should be applied to this gang. 

The remedy for the bonded cases from China handled by -, -, and 

- is suggested by the Canadian collector of customs at Montreal. In 

our conversation he referred to the friendly relations existing between Canada 
and the United States, and he ventured the opinion that if you would take the 
matter up with his superior officer at Ottawa, Canada, the controller of customs, 
instructions would be issued to the Canadian collectors forbidding them to 
accept the $500 deposits on Chinamen destined to the United States, except for 
departure through the Canadian ports of exit corresponding to the American 
ports of entry, Malone, N. Y., and Richford, Vt. 

In other words, an amendment to the Canadian regulations restricting the 
number of their ports of exit to twm for Chinese bonded passengers and making 
those two conform to our two ports of entry would solve the difficulty in my 
opinion. 

(Bu Im. file No. 14299 C.) 

The prophesy of this officer that Attorney - would protest 

to the Department because the inspector stationed at Rouses Point 
had threatened to prosecute the driver of the vehicle in which Chinese 
were being driven from Lacolle into the United States was fulfilled; 
for the said attorney had the temerity to address several letters of 
complaint to the Department, excusing himself for so doing because 
of his deep interest in seeing the boycott of American goods discon¬ 
tinued, and he only desisted in the making of such complaints when 
told plainly that the Department regarded the operations in which 
he was engaged as smuggling. (Bu. Im. file No. 14299 C, 4 letters.) 

ACTION ON THE COWLEY REPORT. 

Acting upon the report above mentioned, the Commissioner-Gen¬ 
eral made representations to the Canadian authorities, the Inter¬ 
colonial Railway over which the ma jority of the Chinamen were being 
brought to Lacolle and Rouses Point being controlled by the govern¬ 
ment, and in consequence orders were issued to the officials not to 












ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSTON LAWS. 107 

accept any more Chinese in bond through Newfoundland into the 
United States. And the Department of Justice, upon being apprised 
of the fact that the commissioner at Plattsburg was releasing so 
many alleged natives, issued orders to the United States attorney to 
see that all future cases were tried before a different commissioner. 
Until, therefore, the smugglers shall devise some new method the 
situation is fairly well in hand, so far as the Canadian-New York 
border is concerned. Some of the difficulties of a general character 
encountered along the northern boundary are described in the chapter 
on “Conditions in general” (p. 7). It is also rumored (Bu. Im. 
file No. 9692 C) that the Canadian government intends to reduce 
the head tax on Chinese from $500 to $50, in which event, of course, 
former conditions generally, and especially concerning the alleged 
native, will be revived, but for the important exception that the 
Government now has the advantage to be derived from the Sing Tuck 
and Ju Toy decisions of the Supreme Court already alluded to. 

MEXICAN BORDER SITUATION. 

With the decrease of the native frauds on the northern boundary 
there has been an increase in the same on the southern border of 
this country where the conditions are ideal for transactions of that 
character. It has not been possible to make arrangements with any 
of the Mexican railways similar to that in force with the Canadian 
Pacific Company, and the Mexican Government, of course, has no 
particular interest to keep the Chinese who arrive at the seaports 
of that country, or who enter it from the United States “ in transit,” 
from crossing into this country at will. The following is extracted 
from a report dated June 30, 1905, of the inspector in charge of the 
Texas district: 

From interviews with reputable American citizens residing in Mexico City, 
Chihuahua, Tampico, Guaymas, and other cities in the Republic of Mexico, it 
is learned that in the places named schools have been established, in charge 
of competent tutors, for the sole purpose of teaching English to the Chinese. 
That the object in view of such Chinese residents of Mexico in studying English 
is not wholly disinterested is readily illustrated when, after having been 
arrested in the act of crossing the international boundary line or having been 
found in El Paso without certificates of residence, they blandly state in our 
courts, in good English, that they were born in the United States and are 
American citizens under a Supreme Court decision. Inasmuch as the state¬ 
ments of these people are invariably corroborated by any number of Chinese 
witnesses they are usually discharged by the commissioner or court and 
declared full-fledged American citizens invested with the right of suffrage, and 
are thus placed beyond the reach of the immigration or Chinese exclusion laws 
when they subsequently visit China and wish to bring back to this country 
their wives and children. 

The Commissioner-General has several times recommended that 
negotiations be entered into with Mexico with a view to perfecting 
arrangements whereby officers of this country could be stationed at 
Mexican ports to examine aliens destined to the United States and to 
investigate and break up the frauds perpetrated in that country by 
Chinese seeking to cross into the United States; but, as yet, nothing 
definite has been accomplished. (Bu. Im. file No’s. 35105, 43006 ancl 
45115.) A full discussion of the conditions existing on the Mexican 
border will be found in the chapter on “ Conditions in General ” 

(P. 7' 


108 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS TO NATIVES. 

The issuance of passports to Chinese persons of alleged American 
nativity has been a question fraught with considerable difficulty and 
embarrassment. Prior to July, 1903, this practice prevailed: The 
Department of State referred to the Treasury Department, for inves¬ 
tigation by Chinese inspectors, all applications for passports sub¬ 
mitted to it by persons of the Chinese race. If such applications 
were reported upon favorably, passports were issued; if unfavorably, 
the applications were denied by the Department of State. After the 
Bureau of Immigration became a part of the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, and when the regulations of July, 1903, w’^ere being 
prejiared, the subject was discussed with the Department of State, 
and the conclusion reached that it would be best to discontinue the 
practice as it was practically impossible to arrive at a conclusion just 
alike to the applicant and the Government in such cases, the appli¬ 
cations being usually sujDported by the affidavits of two or three 
persons, thus making a prima facie case in favor of the applicant 
and imposing upon the investigating officers the difficult‘task of dis¬ 
crediting the affiants or securing affirmative proof that the applicants 
were not born in the United States. The State Department then 
adopted the course of issuing passports to Chinese of alleged Ameri¬ 
can nativity upon satisfactory prima facie proofs of an ex parte 
character, attaching to such passports a notice to the effect-that the 
passport would not be accepted by immigration officials as proof of 
American birth, leaving the claim of nativity to be established by 
independent proof at the time of the arrival of the persons at ports 
of this country, the passports to be given such weight as cumulative 
evidence as might seem to be justified in each case. On October 7, 
1905, the propriety of issuing these qualified passports was questioned 
by the Department of State. 

BUREAU MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 10, 1905. 

The following memorandum, prepared by the Bureau on October 
10, 1905, sets forth the facts fully: 

It is true, as stated in tlie attached letter fi-om the honorable the Secretary 
of State, that the practice formerly obtained (i. e., prior to July, 1903) of con¬ 
ducting investigations concerning affidavits or other evidence presented to the 
State Department by Chinese claiming to be citizens of the United States, the 
officers of the Bureau of Immigration performing such service and the Treasury 
Department transmitting their reports to the Department of State. This prac¬ 
tice has been in vogue during the time that the Chinese exclusion laws were 
enforced by the special agents division of the Treasury Department, and when 
the duty of enforcing such laws was conferred upon the Commissioner-General 
of Immigration, said practice, like many other details of the system of admin¬ 
istration which had been formulated by the special agents, was continued. 

When the Bureau of Immigration became a part of the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, and when in .July, 1903, a committee appointed by the Secre¬ 
tary was reviewing certain Chinese regulations which had been prepared by 
the Bureau and submitted for the Department’s approval, the correctness of 
such practice was brought into question, was thoroughly discussed, and was 
then made the subject of correspondence with the Secretary of State. The 
conclusion finally reached by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was that 
the practice mentioned was incorrect and undesirable for many reasons; and 
the State Department, it appears, from a letter dated July 25, 1903, signed by 
Mr. Adee, then Acting Secretary, decided to adopt the system which has since 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


109 


been pursued of issuing passports to Chinese persons upon the submission to 
the State Department of what it might consider satisfactory evidence of 
citizenship, but attaching to such passports a notice to the effect that the 
passport would not be regarded as evidence of citizenship by officers of the 
Immigration Service located at ports of this country. 

This latter system is the one the propriety of which is questioned in the 
letter of the Secretary of State, dated October 7, 1905, herewith. It is easy to 
understand, of course, the position taken by the Secretary of State in said 
letter, to the effect that he is not willing that the State Department should 
issue a citizen’s passport and attach to such passport a statement detracting 
from its value and dignity; but it can not be conceded that the desire of that 
Department to discontinue the practice adopted by it in July, 1908, must, or 
should, result in a resumi)tion by this Department of the former practice, which 
as above pointed out had been, after careful deliberation, considered by this 
Department to be erroneous. There are several reasons which might be given 
for the view which this Department took of the matter in July, 1908. 

In the first place, the very nature of the case is such that no satisfactory or 
conclusive investigation of a claim of citizenship made before the State Depart¬ 
ment could be cond\icted by officers of the Immigration Service. The only 
thing such officers could do would be to try to break down a prinia facie case set 
up by the Chinamen by means of two or more affidavits, and the result of such 
an effort must of necessity be negative rather than positive in character. 

Again, the process of making such an investigation is necessarily expensive 
in time and money, and I am inclined to doubt whether any part of the appro¬ 
priation made by Congress for the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion laws 
ought properly to be used in collecting evidence on which to base a determina¬ 
tion that a Chinese person is an American citizen and entitled as such to a pass¬ 
port. the question of American citizenship in the cases of Chinese not coming 
directly before immigration officials except upon the application of such a per¬ 
son for admission to this country at a port of entry. 

Furthermore, an investigation conducted in the dual manner indicated could 
not result in rendering passports issued by the State Department to Chinese 
persons conclusive of such persons’ American citizenship, in the absence of any 
provision of law covering the point.^ Nor could this Department properly issue 
to such a Chinese person any paper reciting as the result of its investigation 
that such person had been found to be an American citizen, that paper to be 
used in conjunction with a regular form of passport issued to Chinese, for, as 
above pointed out, immigration officials can obtain jurisdiction to pass upon a 
question of citizenship only in connection with an application by an alien for ad¬ 
mission to this country. 

To approach the sul)ject from a somewhat different standpoint: If the State 
Department were to extend the scope of what is understood to be its present 
practice with regard to evidence on which passports are issued so as to include 
therein a detailed investigation into the allegations made by Chinese applicants 
for such documents, the officers of this Department would not be justified in 
accepting such passports as conclusive on the question of citizenship, for the 
existing provisions of law. Revised Statutes, sections 4075-4080, contain no 
authority for such action. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that what¬ 
ever method might be followed with regard to the issuance of the passports, 
those documents could not be accepted by administrative officers to justify the 
admission to this country of aliens presenting them at ports of entry. Admis- 
istrative officers could not reasonably be expected to require less convincing 
evidence in such applications than would be required to establish a similar 
contention in a United States court. In the Gee Hop case the district court, 
northern district of California, held that (to quote from the syllabus) “a pass¬ 
port issued by the Department of State is not evidence that the person to whom 
it was issued was a citizen of the United States.” It is interesting to note, 
moreover, in this connection, that the Supreme Court of the United States in 
Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy (9 Pet, 692) held as follows regarding the nature of a pass¬ 
port issued by the ^Department of State : 

“ It is a document which, from its nature and object, is addressed 'to foreign 
powers, purporting only to be a request that the bearer of it may pass safely 
and freely, and is to be considered rather in the character of a political docu¬ 
ment, by which the bearer is recognized in foreign countries as an American 
citizen and which, by usage and law of nations, is recognized as evidence of the 
fact. But this is a very different light from that in which it is to be viewed in 
a court of justice, where the inquiry is as to the fact of citizenship. It is a 


110 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


mere ex parte certificate, and if founded upon any evidence produced to the 
Secretary of State, establishing the fact of citizenship, that evidence, if of a 
character admissible in a court of justice, ought to be produced upon the trial, as 
higher and better evidence of the fact.” 

To consent to the acceptance of passports as conclusive evidence of the right 
of persons presenting them to enter the United States as American citizens 
would, in the Bureau’s opinion, open up a vast field for the perpetration of 
fraud, not only in a direct manner, but by the transfer of such documents from 
persons to whom they had been issued to other persons desirous of entering the 
United States despite the exclusion laws. 

As already stated, the present attitude of the State Department on the subject 
of issuing passports of a qualified character is easily understood and appreci¬ 
ated. The proper solution of the difficulty would seem to be this: The State 
Department to follow, in the cases of Chinese applying for passports, the 
methods which it usually employs in other applications for passports, or to sup¬ 
plement those methods in any way that it might deem proper, with a view to 
securing what it may consider sufficient evidence to justify it either in granting 
or refusing to grant passports applied for, and this Department to follow the 
same practice which it has always observed with regard to the investigation of 
claims advanced by Chinese persons asserting American citizenship when they 
arrive at a port of entry and apply for admission, the passport to be regarded 
by all persons concerned as what it really is—namely, a paper issued for the 
protection of a person while such person is traveling abroad. 

PRESENT PRACTICE. 

The practice now followed is this: The Department of State issues 
the passports to the Chinese, obtaining in each case a photograph of 
the applicant and a statement as to the port at which he will apply 
for readmission to the United States, which photograph and state¬ 
ment, together with copies of the evidence upon which the passport 
has been issued, are furnished to the Bureau and are by it forwarded 
to the officer in charge at the port of proposed return, by whom the 
passport is accepted as prima facie proof of American birth of the 
applicant upon the arrival of such applicant, identification being as¬ 
sured by means of the photograph. (Bu. Im. file No. 8136 C.) 

TRADE IN PROSTITUTES. 

ALL CASES or “ WIVES ” OPEN TO SUSPICION. 

The most important feature of the alleged native proposition is 
now taken up. It is alluded to in the last annual report of the Com¬ 
missioner-General (p. 87), and is this: A Chinaman having obtained 
a judicial decision declaring him an American citizen by birth, is 
vested thereby with all the rights and privileges of the status men¬ 
tioned, among others being the right to bring to this country his wife 
and children. There has been no considerable influx of the “ chil¬ 
dren ” as yet—that doubtless will be one of the subterfuges that will 
be adopted by the next generation to a far greater extent than by the 
present one—but the importation of “ wives ” is assuming alarming 
proportions. There are, doubtless, cases of a bona fide character— 
that is, cases in which a real Chinese American citizen brings a real 
wife to this country, but it is not believed that the files of the Bureau 
of Immigration contain a record of a case of the importation of a 
“ wife ” of a native that is free from at least a strong suspicion that 
such “ wife,” if married to the American Chinaman at all, was made 
a party to such marriage solely for the purpose of evading the 
exclusion laws and entering this country, under the guidance of 
Chinese regularly engaged in the traffic, for sale to the highest bidder 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


Ill 


as a ^ prostitute slave. This is the^ most revolting feature of the 

native-born Chinese ” situation; and because of the almost insur¬ 
mountable disadvantages to be encountered, and the extent to which 
the Chinese seem to be “ waking up ” to the possibilities for money¬ 
making connected therewith, is perhaps the most discouraging of all 
the complications met in endeavoring to enforce the exclusion laws. 
It is not the intention to convey the impression that this is an evil 
of recent origin; merely that it has greatly increased, especially in 
connection with the cases of alleged natives. The traffic in slave 
girls for purposes of prostitution has always thrived in the cities 
of this country that have any considerable Chinese population. 

SLAVE GIRLS IN SAN FRANCISCO. 

The following extracts from a report, submitted to the Attorney- 
General by the United States attorney at San Francisco, on June 24, 
1901, are of interest, showing, as they do, the extent of the evil in 
that city at the date mentioned: 

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letters of the 11th and 14th 
of May, 1901,'requesting a report from me with reference to my investigation 
of the Chinese slave girl traffic, and such steps as I have been able to take in 
suppressing the same, and also asking for any recommendation that I may have 
to make on the subject. 

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 

I have already advised the Department by my telegrams of the 22d and 26th 
of April, 1901, of the apprehension of 18 Chinese girls claimed to be of the slave 
class, and of the result in the lower court of the first case tried. 

In pursuance to instructions issued to my predecessor, Hon. Frank L. Coombs, 
Sind subsequently to myself, dated March 8, 1901, I made investigations into 
the Chinese slave traffic in girls and women. These investigations consumed 
:i period of nearly four weeks, and covered, among other things, examinations 
of the Chinese bureau at this port for fully eight years back to ascertain what 
Chinese girls had been landed, and, if possible, to locate them or some of them. 
My efforts in this direction were seriously handicapped for the reason that the 
records of the Chinese bureau for the years 1890 to 1896 or 1897, were, in many 
instances, imperfectly kept; in some cases, not at all. 

Again, the task of locating Chinese slave girls, so-called, is extremely difficult, 
and their arrest, when once located, much more so. They are kept in constant 
hiding and seclusion in buildings strongly barricaded. These buildings are also 
provided with many secret passages and outlets, rendering it extremely difficult 
to make any arrests. I am advised, that since the first arrests were made, quite 
a number of Chinese females have been clandestinely removed from the city of 
San Francisco to other parts of the State; and, in some instances, to other 
States. I would therefore suggest that the United States attorney for the 
southern district of California, and of such other States as Oregon, Nevada, and 
Colorado, be instructed to make investigations similar to those made by myself, 
and to take like steps if deemed advisable. 

It is estimated that there are from 150 to 300 Chinese prostitutes in San 
Francisco. Of this number it is impossible to fix definitely the number who are 
held in bondage, but it may safely be said that there are quite a number of 
them. The whereabouts of some 23 girls was finally located, who, I was reliably 
informed, were here unlawfully, and some of whom belonged to the slave class. 
Twenty-three warrants were thereupon issued. The proposed arrests had to be 
kept in the greatest secrecy for obvious reasons, and at 4 o’clock of Saturday 
afternoon of April 20, 1901, the United States marshal, assisted by some 8 or 
9 deputies, and by some 10 officers from the Chinese bureau, making about 18 
or 19 officers all told, met at an appointed place, separated into squads and pro¬ 
ceeded by different routes to the place of rendezvous, viz, several Chinese houses 
of ill fame on what is known as Sullivan alley, in Chinatown, San Francisco. 
The girls and their keepers were taken completely unawares. Eighteen Chinese 
girls, who did not produce registration certificates and could not give a satis- 


112 


ENFOECEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


factory account of how they came here, were arrested and immediately taken to 
two Chinese missions in San Francisco; one the Methodist Episcopal Mission 
and the other the Presbyterian Mission. I may add that the officers found 
altogether some 33 or 34 Chinese girls in these various houses of prostitution; 
but, upon examination, it was found that all of them, excepting the 18 arrested, 
had certificates of registration or United States court records showing that they 
had been landed upon judgments of United States courts. 

The difficulty of making these arrests or raids, so called, can hardly be appre¬ 
ciated. The Chinese are a very shrewd, cunning, and wily people. Chinatown 
is honeycombed with alleys and culs-de-sac, and the buildings with secret pas¬ 
sages and outlets. No one who is unfamiliar with the condition of affairs in 
Chinatown here can conceive of the difficulty of making arrests, or proceeding 
at all against the Chinese. 

The Chinese females arrested were immediately taken, as stated, to the 
Chinese missions, and an attempt was made by Mr. Gardner, acting as inter¬ 
preter, to elicit statements from them as to where they were born; if in China, 
liow they came here and whether they were held in service as prostitutes or 
bondage. A number of the females refused to make-any statements, and others 
only partially. The following Monday, April 22, 1901, I immediately took steps 
to set the cases for trial. Several prominent attorneys were employed by the 
Chinese keepers or owners to represent the defendants, and it was sought to 
delay the proceedings as much as possible. I insisted, against strenuous oppo¬ 
sition, upon immediate hearings. This I did so that as little time as possible 
for “ coaching ” the defendants and their witnesses might be had. Application 
for bail on behalf of the greater number of the defendants was made. I fixed 
the bail in the sum of $3,000. This may seem unusually large and excessive, but 
I was reliably informed that the value of Chinese slave girls, or prostitutes, 
ranges all the way from $1,000 to $3,000, I further insisted, and successfully, 
that the court should nurke an order requiring each of the Chinese girls released 
on bail to attach her photograph to the bond, so as to obviate substitution, which 
otherwise could easily be affected, as all Chinese girls “ look alike to me.” Nine 
of the defendants were released on bail under this arrangement, 

I regarded the release of these females with a decided feeling of discomfort 
and ap])reliension, for the reason that as soon as they return to Chinatown they 
are thoroughly coached as to the stories to tell the court about being born in this 
country. As the Chinese usually do not consort with white people, but keep 
by themselves, especially where there is such a large colony as in San Francisco 
(numbering some 25,000), we are limited to, and dependent almost entirely upon, 
Chinese testimony. This gives the Chinese a decided advantage and the Govern¬ 
ment is at a corresponding disadvantage. The Chinese can make up almost any 
story about birth in this country that they see fit, and the Government has no 
t'vidence to discredit this story except a reliance upon skillful cross-examination. 

The first case that was heard resulted, after a triAl lasting the better part of 
two days, in a judgment of deportation. The case was entitled United States 
V. Jeung Juen Ho. ♦ ♦ ♦ 

The testimony on the part of the defendant showed that she was born within 
the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., and that she had never gone beyond 
the limits of the State. This testimony was absolutely contradicted by the tes¬ 
timony of a Chinese girl, now Christianized, who testified that she had come 
from China on the same vessel with the defendant and had occupied the same 
stateroom with her. Mr. Gardner was able to recollect having seen the defend- 
r.nt on the steamer China in 1897, when she arrived here, and to have partici¬ 
pated in the examination then made as to her right to land in the United States. 

Notice of appeal to the United States district court for this district was given, 
and the appeal was duly perfected. The case was argued and submitted on 
appeal June 15, 1901. As yet no decision has been rendered. 

The trial of the second case, that qf United States v. Lee Ah Yin, immediately 
followed. She was ordered deported, but I consider the case an exceedingly 
close one, and would not be surprised to see the case reversed on appeal. 

The third case was that of United States v. Fong Mey Yuk. The evidence in 
that case was very strong for the defendant and I was compelled to rely 
chiefly upon cross-examination and in attempting to impeach the credibility of 
the witnesses for the defendant. In this respect I succeeded, and the usual 
judgment of deportation was entered. The case was appealed to the United 
States district court for this district and the judgment of the United States com¬ 
missioner affirmed. An appeal has since been taken to the circuit court of 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSIOFT LAWS. 113 

appeals for this circuit, which can not be reached until next October; and, in 
the ordinary course of things, will not be disposed of until February, 1902. 

I take the liberty of saying that my efforts, both in the deportation of some 
of the defendants, and in suppressing, at least to some extent, the traffic in 
Chinese girls, have had a salutary effect and have been warmly commended by 
Federal officials and the public press. 

An effort to deport a large number of Chinese females was made some three 
years ago by my predecessor. Thirty-two females were arrested, but out of 
this number only .two were ever ordered deported, the defendants in the remain¬ 
ing cases being discharged. 

I will how briefly advert to the legal aspect of the Chinese slave-girl question. 

It is undoubtedly true that Chinese slavery, so-called, exists in San Francisco; 
that is, that young Chinese girls are purchased in China, and are brought to 
and landed in the United States, either at San Francisco or at some other port 
within the United States, or are landed in a foreign neighboring country, 
such as British Columbia and Mexico, and from thence make their way across 
the border lines into the United States. These girls, once in the United States, 
are, if of sufficiently mature age, placed in houses of prostitution, where they 
work out, so to speak, their freedom. By the time this is done they have ad¬ 
vanced to such an age, or have become so inured to the life of a prostitute, that 
reform is doubtful. While in bondage they are frequently sold by one keeper 
of a house of prostitution, or owner of Chinese slave girls, to another. It some¬ 
times happens that one owner will sell his entire outfit of girls. This system of 
Chinese traffic in girls for the purposes of prostitution, revolting as it may 
appear to us, is one peculiar to the Chinese people, and nothing is thought of it 
among the lower classes. I am informed that It exists in China, and in every 
place in the United States where there is a colony of Chinese of any number. 
The same is true, generally speaking, so I am informed, of Chinese girls born in 
the United States. 

Many of the girls now under arrest would much prefer, and have so expressed 
themselves in court, to return to their lives of prostitution, even under the 
stringent and distasteful conditions of involuntary servitude, rather than remain 
at the missions and there live honorable and quiet lives. Some of the girls are 
well treated by their owners or keepers, while others are abused more or less. 
This state of things has existed for many years in California, but it is only 
very recently that any attempt has been made to stamp out, to some extent at 
least, this growing evil. 

* * 4 ! ^ ^ 

Briefly speaking, there are two ways in which it (the Department) can 
proceed: 

(1) By means of the Chinese exclusion laws; (2) by means of such laws 
relating to involuntary servitude as are now in force and applicable to the 
present situation. 

The Chinese exclusion laws providing for the deportation of Chinese persons 
who are found to be unlawfully within the United States do not fully meet the 
situation, but they are effective in harassing the owners or keepers of Chinese 
women, and render the importation and traffic of Chinese girls precarious and 
less profitable, thereby tending in some degree to break it up. Out of the 16 
cases already tried I have succeeded in obtaining judgments of deportation in 
8 cases. As the average value of the girls is placed at $2,500 each, this means a 
loss of about $20,000, not to speak of lawyers’ fees, court expenses, and inter¬ 
ference of business. 

The unpleasant part of deportation proceedings is that it often visits harsh 
consequences on the unfortunate females, who, in many respects, are rather to 
be pitied, and are not as guilty as their importers and owners. In being sent 
back to China they often meet with a worse fate. Nevertheless, if they are 
clearly proven to be within the United States unlawfully, it must result that 
they should be deported regardless of the personal consequences to themselves. 

While, under section 3 of the act of May 5, 1892, the burden of proof is placed 
upon the Chinese person arrested, and he or she must satisfy the court by 
affirmative proof of his or her right to be and remain here, still I have been 
careful, in view of the harsh consequences that might ensue to these women 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-8 



114 ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

upon their return to China, not to insist upon a deportation in a merely tech¬ 
nical case, or where the proof was at all doubtful. My policy thus far has 
been only to insist upon a judgment of deportation where the proofs showed 
affirmatively and satisfactorily that the defendant was not born in the United 
States, and that she had come here by fraudulent and unlawful means. 

I hope, however, through these deportation proceedings, to be able in the course 
of time to elicit confessions from some one or more of the women ordered 
deported; as to the manner in which they came here; how they were landed 
fraudulently; who participated in the fraudulent landing; who purchased them 
or has since held them in involuntary servitude; in fact, to get such facts as 
will justify criminal prosecutions against the owners or keepers, or those who 
have been engaged in the importation and unlawful landing and holding of these 
girls to involuntary servitude. 

I have found it thus far very difficult to obtain sufficient legal evidence to 
justify criminal prosecutions, but I am working diligently in the direction 
indicated. 

* ^ 

To take up the more recent cases alluded to prior to the insertion 
of the above-quoted matter, the following four cases are cited as 
t 3 qoical of a number, the records of which are on file in the Bureau 
of Immigration: 

CASE OF AH YING. 

On November 25, 1904, there arrived at San Francisco a Chinese 
girl named Ah Ying, alias Lee Choy, who claimed to be 21 years of 
age and to be entitled to land in the United States by virtue of her 
marriage on October 18, 1904, in the consulate-general of the United 
States at Canton, by Rev. W. Bridie, of the Wesleyan Methodist 
Church, to one Yee Boy, a Chinaman of American birth. Although 
there were many reasons for suspecting that the said Ah Ying had 
been a prostitute in China, and was being brought to this country 
to be sold into slavery to persons engaged in conducting houses of 
ill-fame in the Chinese quarter of San Francisco, the American nativ¬ 
ity of Yee Poy being established, and the certificate of marriage being 
shown by a photograph attached thereto to relate to the applicant for 
admission, she was allowed to land in the United States. On February 
12, 1906, the above-mentioned girl was found by the immigration offi¬ 
cers at San Francisco in the Presbyterian mission, having been rescued 
from a house of ill-fame by one of the missionaries, and upon exam¬ 
ination she testified to the effect that her real name was Lee Chov; 
that her actual age was 19; that she was induced to come to this 
country by one Yee May, to whom she was introduced by a profes¬ 
sional “ matchmaker ” belonging to a “ class of people in China who 
make it their business of bujdng and selling slaves; ” that this woman 
asked her whether she wmuld like to come to San Francisco, to which 
she replied that she would if she could earn more money by “ sing¬ 
ing ” than in China, but told such woman distinctly that she did not 
desire to enter a house of prostitution if brought to San Francisco; 
that upon her arrival in San Francisco she was almost immediately 
placed in a house of ill-fame; that her so-called marriage to Yee Poy 
in the consulate-general at Canton was not regarded by her as any¬ 
thing but a mock marriage; that being in a pregnant condition upon 
her arrival at San Francisco, she was placed in hospital, where she 
reniained for a short time, when Yee Poy called at the hospital, 
claimed her, and took her to the house of Yee May, at which place 
a child was born to her; that after the birth of the child she was 
placed in a brothel on Baker alley, stayed there a little over a month. 


ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


115 


and was then assigned to the brothel known as the “ Pelting 
Stearner; ” that Yee May’s wife forced her to enter the first house of 
prostitution, and her assignment to the second place was brought 
about by the proprietor thereof; and that Yee May procured two 
other girls in China at the same time that he procured her. (Bu. 
Im. file No. 12811 C.) 

wo HONG HOO CASE. 

On August 24, 1905, a Chinese girl named Wo Hong Hoo arrived 
at San Francisco, presenting a certificate of marriage signed by the 
consul-general of the United States at Canton, showing that a cere¬ 
mony between herself and one Chin Lun, a Chinaman of American 
birth, had been performed by a minister of the American Presby¬ 
terian Church. This girl also claimed that she herself had been born 
in the United States and had gone to China in early childhood. In 
this case also the immigration officers suspected that the girl was 
being imported for sale into prostitution, but the nativity of the 
alleged husband and the fact of the marriage being conclusively 
shown, she was landed. On February 13, 1906, she was found in the 
Presb 3 derian mission in San Francisco, and testified as follows: That 
she is now only IT, although she claimed to be 18 at the time of her 
arrival; that she was born in China, not in this country, as originally 
claimed; that she never lived with her alleged husband after being 
landed, and he never contributed to her support; that she was taken 
to a place on Stockton street and put in charge of the second wife of 
one Lee Chee; that when slie left China she had no idea she was being 
brought to this country for immoral purposes, but after being landed 
soon learned that such was the purpose, which, however was not 
carried out, as she was rescued by one of the missionaries. (Bu. Im. 
file No. 12811 C.) 


CHAN CHAW HO CASE. 

On August 3, 1905, there arrived at San Francisco one Chan Chaw 
Ho, IT years old, who presented a certificate of marriage purporting 
to show that she had been united in wedlock to one Ng Chuck, a 
Chinaman of American birth, the ceremony having been performed 
in the office of the registrar of marriages at Hongkong. Although 
there were many reasons for suspecting that the woman had been a 
prostitute in China, and was being brought to this country for sale 
to a house of ill fame, it was impossible to establish such suspicions, 
and the evidence of the marriage and of the American nativity of the 
alleged husband being convincing in character, the girl was landed. 
On February 13, 1906, she was found in the Chinese Presbyterian 
mission in San Francisco, and testified that immediately upon her 
landing she was taken by a man, whose name she did not know, from 
the steamer to a house on SpoJford alley, and turned over to a woman 
who became her mistress; that she never lived with, in fact, never saw 
her alleged husband after being landed, and had no idea where he 
lived, except that it was not in San Francisco; that she was then 
placed in a brothel two or three doors from the house on Spofford 
alley, to which she had first been taken, and from the latter place was 
rescued by one of the missionaries, (Bu. Im. file. No, 12811 C.) 


116 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


CASE OF LEE WAH AND TWO WOMEN. 

On December 5, 1905, there arrived at San Francisco one Lee Wah, 
who claimed admission on the ground that his birth had occurred in 
the United States, and in whose case evidence of a character which, 
if properly identified with the person to whom it purported to relate, 
would be considered sufficient to justify landing, had been collected 
from several sources in San Francisco. This man was accompanied 
by two women, one of whom claimed to be his wife by virtue of a 
recent marriage ceremony said to have been performed in China, and 
the other of whom sought admission by means of papers obtained by 
her procurer in San Francisco, and which related to the birth in this 
country of a certain Chinese girl bearing somewhat the same per¬ 
sonal appearance as the applicant. A careful examination of these 
three parties resulted in showing conclusively that Lee Wah could 
not have been born in San Francisco at the date and place and of the 
parents alleged; that the claimed marriage did not occur at the time 
and place in China stated; and the woman applying for admission 
as a native-born made a full confession to the effect that she had 
never been outside of China before; that she had in her early girl¬ 
hood been sold by her father into domestic slavery, and later had 
been resold to the proprietor of a house of prostitution; that being 
compelled by a new regulation adopted by the viceroy of Canton to 
close the house of prostitution, her owner disposed of her to Lee Wah 
for the sum of $550; that Lee Wah furnished her with the papers 
which he had taken with him from San Francisco relating to a girl 
actually born in this country, changed her name to correspond there¬ 
with, and coached her as to the answers she should make upon arrival 
at San Francisco. (Bu. Im. file No. 14480 C.) 

OTHER PROSTITUTION CASES. 

Between July 25 and November 25, 1904, there arrived at San 
Francisco six other Chinese girls, two of whom admitted that they 
were prostitutes, and were returned to China, the other four being 
admitted as natives or as wives of natives, and two of the latter 
having since been located in houses of ill fame, and one rescued by 
the missionaries. In these cases a very interesting statement by 
Miss Carrie G. Davis, superintendent of the Methodist Chinese Mis¬ 
sion, and an accompanying statement by her Chinese interpreter are 
on file, and furnish valuable evidence of the practices followed in 
such cases. (Bu. Im. file No. 12811 C.) Two other cases are those 
of Wong A. Kam and Wong Ah Ying, who were admitted as recently 
as February 9, 1906, as the wives of natives, presenting certificates 
showing the marriages to have been solemnized in the office of the 
“registrar of marriages,” of the colony of Hongkong. The testi¬ 
mony in these cases led to the suspicion that the certificates had been 
obtained by fraud, and an investigation of them by the consul- 
general at Hongkong is now pending. (Bu. Im. file No. 12811 C.) 

MEXICAN BORDER CASES. 

^ This traffic is not confined to San Francisco, but is being exten¬ 
sively practiced along the Mexican border. The following extract 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. Il7 

from a report by the Chinese interpreter at El Paso, Tex., dated 
September 2, 1905, is interesting: 

Very reliable information has .Inst been received by me that several hundred 
Chinese young women have arrived in INIexico, or are being brought thereto from 
Hongkong, with the ultimate purpose of being smuggled into the United States 
along the Mexican border, particularly El Paso, and then shipped to San Fran¬ 
cisco to be sold for $2,000 each for immoral purposes. There are two Chinese 
smugglers here to manage this enormous enterprise. One of them has just 
ret limed from San Francisco, after completing their plans there.' The method 
by which they will attempt to smuggle these young women into the United 
States is that they will all disguise themselves as Mexican women and will be 
accompanied by Mexicans as man and wife. (Bn. Im. file No. 13G44-C.) 

Some of these women may have been brought to this country in the 
manner suggested, but there is no record thereof. Several women 
have been admitted at El Paso since, as the wives' however, of natives, 
and the following two telegrams, dated February 20, 190G, from that 
station indicate an intention on the part of the Chinese to bring in 
more (Bu. Im. file No. 14505-C) : 

Two more native-born Chinese who passed this port February 10 from San 
Francisco to Mexico City returned from City of Mexico with Chinese wives. 
No doubt are prostitutes. * * * 

Two more Chinese arrived from San Francisco for City of Mexico, probably 
after two more girls. ♦ ♦ ♦ 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GRIMES. 

The following letter from one Joseph Grimes, of El Paso, dated 
February 22, 1906, is believed to be a correct statement of the case: 

As far back as last August or September I learned of a certain high-handed 
movement being schemed by agents of Chinese brothels in California, the nature 
of which is the illegal importation of Chinese girls into the United States, 
through Mexico, for the purpose of prostitution, all of which information I sub¬ 
mitted at the time to the inspector in charge of this port, Mr. T. F. Schmucker. 

A month or so ago a test was attempted by a young Chinaman, who claims to 
be a native-born citizen of the United States, and had just returned from China 
in company with a Chinese girl he stated he had married in China. He had 
made the remarkable long journey in returning to the United States from Hong¬ 
kong by way of Canada, then across to New York, from where he took a steamer 
to Habana, then to Vera Cruz, and finally by rail to Juarez. Both the man and 
girl were denied admission through this port, which fact, I presume, had been 
duly brought to your attention. 

Since Mr. Schmucker’s departure on his present tour, and also Mr. Meeds’s 
sudden call to Washington, another similar attempt has been made, and, if I 
remember rightly, it happened on the 20th instant, when three Chinamen ap¬ 
plied for admission as native-born citizens'with their newly wedded wives—hav¬ 
ing in this instance gone to Mexico (not to China) from San Francisco for the 
purpose of marrying these women. I believe an investigation of this bold 
undertaking ought to be brought about by the Bureau before it will be too late, 
and I make known these facts as the duty of a citizen and as the personal friend 
of Mr. Schmucker during his absence. 

I had occasion recently to go to Mexico, where I received from an authentic 
source the information that there are several Chinese girls (bought for certain 
brothers in San Francisco) there awaiting their opportunity to slip into the 
United States. These girls had come from China by way of Salina Cruz, 
Mexico, and were then conducting themselves with perfect freedom, or, in 
other words, in a manner unbecoming young girls destined to be married to 
respectable young Chinamen. Fancy as many as 15 of them arriving in a 
bunch and living in a boarding house above the club rooms of the Chinese 
Reform Association in Mexico City. Anybody acquainted with the customs 
of the Chinese people and their etiquette is fully aware of the fact that they 
regard their women in a very different light than we do ours. A respectable 
young woman must be married from the house of her folks, and the husband-to- 
be never saw her until after the nuptial ceremonies—it is a secret compact be- 


118 


ENFORCEMENT OE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


tween the parents of either party in any station of life. A girl outside of her 
parental roof and protection is an outcast, or one sold to slavery or prostitution, 
either of which is known to be a common practice where a family is in dire cir¬ 
cumstances or having more girls than it can afford to maintain. 

My personal experience in China extended to over seven years, and any 
assertions I may make about the doings of the Chinese are not fictitious or 
without foundation. I was employed by the identical steamship company, a 
purely Chinese concern, which has been in operation between China and 
Mexico, conveying Chinese immigrants from Hongkong to Salina Cruz since 
1902. There are more Chinamen in JMexico than there is work for them—work 
that would sufficiently compensate them—and at least 70 per cent of those 
who are in Mexico aim to come into the Unfted States. I admit they are not 
all of the laboring class; nevertheless they are all striving to make this 
country their future camping ground. Tho.se who have encouraged and who 
have achieved financial remuneration in the smuggling of men have now gone 
to the extremity of importing immoral women. Imagine the incredible premium 
offered for a woman who could be safely piloted and evade the vigilance of 
the immigration officials and landed in San Francisco. Two thousand dollars 
United States gold. Ten times as much as the Six Companies pay for a man. 
1 can not refrain from saying that since my sojourn at El Paso I have ob¬ 
tained some knowledge of the doings of these smugglers. They are on both 
sides of the Rio Grande, making a “ fat thing.’* On the Mexican side a flourish¬ 
ing business is done in boarding those desiring to be smuggled over. Occa¬ 
sionally one or two unfortunate Celestials, drained of everything they had, 
and could not find any backing, are “ tipped off ” to the immigration officers 
on this side, or to the Mexican officers on the other, by these same sharks who 
harbored them, so that they, the broken down and undesirable ones, may be 
sent back to China at the expense of the United States Government. Chinese 
smugglers are lavish and liberal with their money and make many friends 
among all classes of people. They retain the best lawyers in the country. I 
have heard one of them remark that the Chinese exclusion laws have so many 
outlets, and when applied along this border-the majority of cases meet with 
success when contested either before the United States commissioner or before 
the Federal court. I chanced to read a while ago a most interesting report 
published by the Bureau made by Mr. Schmucker, inspector in charge of this 
district, wherein he asserts that since the last Chinese census, taken about last 
March, until the time of the report, 300 or more Chinamen with “ certificates,” 
which did not appear in the census, presented themselves at the office to have 
same compared, as they wished to leave for other points in the United States. 
Such having been the case, there is no doubt in my mind that more Chinamen 
than could be estimated are smuggled over this border than any in the United 
States. The city of El Paso affords innumerable hiding places to secrete uncerti¬ 
fied men, and it is an established fact that railroad employees have assisted many 
in safety leaving it; thus officials are severely handicapped in their efforts to 
perform their duty, which, in my opinion, is strenuous and trying. 

* 4 : * « * 4 : * 

CLAIMS IN CHINA OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. 

✓ 

Another feature of the native claim of Chinese is the fact that there 
are a number of such Chinese living in China now, especially in the 
Sun Ning district of the Kwangtung Province. Some of these, it is 
understood, are doubtless genuine cases, but the majority are Chinese 
who find it to their advantage there, as well as in this country, to 
claim the “ inestimable heritage ” of American citizenship. There is 
no end to the trouble and annoyance which are occasioned the Ameri¬ 
can consular officers by this element. The very fact that they claim 
American citizenship guarantees them immunity from many obliga¬ 
tions imposed upon Chinese citizens by the Chinese Government, and 
they are the recipients of special favors at the hands of customs offi¬ 
cials. Immediately that any of them become involved in difficulty 
they apply to our consulates for protection, and it is thus that the 
chief difficulty is encountered. It is understood that the policy which 
the consular officers at Canton have finally had to adopt as a measure 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 119 

of self-protection is to question evei'y applicant for protection as to 
whether he owns property in the interior, whether he trades in any 
port other than a treaty port, and to observe wdiether he wears a 
cue. If all or any of these things are true, the consular officers 
refuse to have anything to do with the case, on the ground that the 
existence of such facts, or fact, is incompatible with the claimed 
American citizenship. It will thus be seen that the immigration 
officials are not the only ones who have to be exacting in the matter 
of proofs when it comes to dealing with the Chinaman of alleged 
American nativity. (Bu. Im. file ^*Jo. 14158 C.) 

NUMBER OF “ NATIVES ” ADMITTED AND REJECTED. 

The following table gives the number of Chinese persons who have 
applied to immigration officials at ports of entry for admission to 
this country, as natives, during the fiscal years 1904 and 1905, and the 
six months ended December 31, 1905, and the number admitted and 
rejected, respectively. It is a matter of regret that during prior 
years statistics were not kept in such a manner as to make it possible 
to insert’ similar figures for the preceding three fiscal years. 



Admitted. 

Rejected. 

Total. 

Fiscal year 1904___ 

438 

550 

988 

Fiscal year 1905 ______ 

599 

69 

668 

Six montlis ended Dec. 30, 1905 ______ 

539 

23 

562 


Total__ 

1,576 

642 

2,218 



As stated at the opening of this chapter, the courts have given a 
much broader application to the Wong Kim Ark decision than would 
seem to be justified by the wording of said decision. Administrative 
officers, however, have not been in the habit of construing that deci¬ 
sion so liberally—a fact which makes the above table all the more 
significant, for the great majority of the 1,576 admitted by adminis¬ 
trative officers during the two years and six months were able to show 
conclusively that they had been in this country for at least a consid- 
able period of time immediately antedating the visit to China from 
which returning when admitted as natives. 

DEPARTMENT DECISION NO. 60, LIMITING APPLICATION OF DECISION 

IN WONG KIM ARK CASE. 

Department decision No. 60, reading as follows, is the leading 
case, and, although it was not rendered until September 14, 1904, 
it sets forth a princi])le which has been maintained by administrative 
officers for years, and has been followed quite generally by them in 
passing upon the claims of alleged natives: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, September 14, 190ff. 

Sir : Under cover of your letter of September 2, No. 1090 C, the Department 
has received the record* on appeal in the case of Chu Kne Chee, who arrived 
at your port July 15, 1904, as No. 3, per steamship Mongolia, and was refused 
admission by you August 27 on the following two grounds: 

First. That you would not be justified in admitting him upon the unsup¬ 
ported evidence of his alleged father and one other person. 


















120 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSTON LAWS. 


Second. That, even if he were born in the United States, he has waived his 
rights to American citizenship by going to China in early infancy and residing 
there ever since, and for several years past his majority. 

The evidence submitted in this case consists of the testimony of the appellant, 
that of his alleged father, Chu Hing, alias Chee Wong Guey, treasurer of the 
Hop Wah Association (one of the Six Companies), and that of one Gee Lee, 
all being consistently to the effect that the appellant was born in San Fran¬ 
cisco in K. S. 6 (1880), and that when about 18 months old he departed for 
China with his parents and has continued to reside in that country ever since. 
The Department is of opinion that the testimony, in view of its consistency 
and the apparently frank and straightforward manner in which it was given, 
establishes the claim set up by the appellant. 

The appellant evidently bases his claim to American citizenship upon the 
decision of the Supreme Court iu the Wong Kim Ark case (109 U. S., 649). 
The Wong Kim Ark case and the one under consideration present wholly 
different facts—so different as to exclude this case from the operation of the 
said decision. In the Wong Kim Ark case birth in the United States was con¬ 
ceded, that birth was followed by continuous residence, interrupted by but two 
brief visits to China, on the return from the latter of which Wong Kim Ark 
was denied admission, and the issue thus presented was decided in his favor. 
In that case, however, the court expressly reserved its opinion in regard to 
the effect upon such a claim of the commission of any act upon the part of 
the claimant, or of his parents during his minority from which an intention 
might have been inferred to abandon his residence and his nationality. • 

Clearly, therefore, the Wong Kim Ark decision does not apply to the case at 
issue. In the judgment of the Department, the principles upon which that 
opinion was based could not be extended to cover such a claim as that pre¬ 
sented by the appellant. According to the testimony, the appellant was about 
]8 months old when he left the United States. For more than twenty-two 
years he has continued to reside in China. Upon reaching his majority he 
evinced no intention of electing on his own account as his nationality the 
country of his alleged birth. On the contrary, he has remained in China for 
three full years past the time of reaching his majority. 

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case above cited was based upon its 
construction of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, which declares 
that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein 
they reside.” For the purpose of that case, since Wong Kim Ark was con¬ 
ceded to be a resident of this country, the court omitted consideration of the 
words “ and of the State wherein they reside.” In the case under considera¬ 
tion, however, these words must be held to be an indispensable part of the 
constitutional declaration. They indicate that the framers of the amendment 
had in view the determination of the political status, not of all persons born 
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof at the time of 
their birth, but only of such as were residents of the United States at the time 
their claims were set up. It is not pretended that the appellant has any resi¬ 
dence in this country; and therefore this constitutional provision, if operative 
in this case, would fail in one material point of accomplishing its purpose of 
defining the complete political status of this American-born person, since it 
could not establish his State allegiance. This is obvious when the fact is taken 
into consideration of citizenship therein, respectively, one of which is invariably 
residence therein for a longer or shorter period. 

The Department is therefore of opinion, in view of the facts above men¬ 
tioned, that the appellant’s birth in the United States does not constitute him 
a citizen of the said country and entitle him to admission thereto irrespective 
of the provisions of the Chinese exclusion laws. The appeal is accordingly 
dismissed. 

Respectfully, Lawrence O. Murray, 

Acting Secretary. 

Commissioner of Immigration, 

Sum, Francisco, Qal, 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


121 


RESULTS OF DEPARTMENT’S HOLDING. 

This construction has, it is believed, prevented many violations of 
law by the alleged native class. The decision has not been applied 
directly to a great number of cases, but its deterrent elfect has been 
good, and it has resulted in a general observance of the requirement 
that, in the cases of Chinese alleging nativity, and admitting that 
they have been in China for a long period of time, evidence of a 
very convincing character must be produced, and, as nearly if not 
quite all of such cases are fraudulent, such evidence is not, as a rule, 
forthcoming. For this reason, and the fact that coaching is care¬ 
fully guarded against in administrative hearings, the alleged native 
and his attorney quite naturally prefer to get their cases before 
United States commissioners for decision, and use every pretext to 
accomplish that end. 

So many cases of alleged natives, heard by the Department on 
appeal, might be drawn from the Bureau’s files that this paper would 
be several times multiplied by even a brief statement of them. Some 
very fair samples of the variations which the manufactured native 
case assumes can be obtained by a perusal of the printed decisions of 
the Department bearing the following numbers: 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 
39, 42, 43, 44, 53, 78, 79, and 96. 


STATISTICS OF SEX. 


As shown by the table given hereinbefore, during the six months 
ended December 31, 1905, there were admitted to this country as na¬ 
tives 539 Chinese, and during the fiscal years ended June 30, 1904, 
and June 30, 1905, respectively, 438 and 599, making a total of 1,576 
Chinamen who were allowed to enter the United States as American 
citizens by administrative decision alone. To carry the figures fur¬ 
ther, there might safely be added thereto without risk of duplicatitig 
(for Chinamen do not make frequent visits to their native land), 
an approximate 1,000 for the two fiscal years ended June 30, 1902, 
and June 30,1903, which would bring the total up to 2,576. But these 
are not all by any means, for the courts and court commissioners, 
especially in the vicinity of our land boundaries, as has already been 
pointed out in this chapter and the chapter on “ Conditions in 
General ” (p. 7), have been busy during the last few years discharg¬ 
ing Chinamen as American citizens upon the testimony of Chinese 
witnesses. This matter is very forcibly stated at pages 146-147 of 
the annual report of the Commissioner-General for the liscal year 
ended June 30, 1904, where a fair, although estimated, comparison 
is drawn between the number of Chinese applying for admission 
as natives and the census reports as to the number of Chinese females 
in this country during the period when such Chinamen claimed to 
have been born. 


Consider taking the present year as an average, that possibly 10,000 to 12,000 
Chinese claiming citizenship by birth in this country have come to our ports in 
the last twelve years; consider as well that virtually they are all males and all 
born in the Pacific States; allow a fair proportion of Chinese births to be 
females; allow also for some mortality and such a number of absentees as 
will keep the stream flowing hereafter at about the rate mentioned ^1,000 
per annum; and bear in mind that these claimants are practically all at 
least 20 years of age, or born some time prior to 1884, what married female 
population of the Pacific States should there have been twenty years iygo? 
There were in those States in 1900, according to the census, 1,746, and of 


122 


EI^FOECEMENT OF CHmESE-EXCLXTSION LAWS. 


married and widowed in the entire continental portion of the United States but 
2,316. Chinese females were never numerous in the United States, but were 
fewer in the earlier days of Chinese immigration than they are now. If all of 
the children born of Chinese couples here were sons, all returned to China, and 
all survived to return to this country, it is making a draft on its credulity that 
is hard to honor when this country is asked to believe that among its other 
staple products it was for years prior to, say, 1884 having Chinese male citi¬ 
zens born to it at the rate of 1,000 per annum. 

. CHARACTER OF ‘‘ NATIVES.” 

The above comparison is rendered more striking when it is remem¬ 
bered that many, perhaps a majority of the Chinese thus claiming 
admission, assert that they are “ the only child ” of their parents— 
a claim which is made for the purpose of simplifying the details of 
the coaching of witnesses. When it is considered that applicants 
making this already threadbare claim of nativity are still arriving 
in vast numbers, and that such arrivals are not on the decrease, the 
figures become astounding. It is true, as already asserted, that many 
of these admissions, especially those made by administrative officers, 
are readmissions; that is, to say, the Chinamen have been in this 
country before, and are returning from a visit to China. But it is 
also true that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Chinese have been 
smuggled over our boundaries—Canadian and Mexican—during past 
years; and the circumstances that many of these applicants for read¬ 
mission can speak little or no English, and have quite apparently 
been in this country for only a few years, indicate that they belong 
to this class of unlaAvful residents, who, adopting this means of 
obtaining the privilege of visiting their native land (their object 
being to purchase wives or to visit wives to whom already married— 
an object which a Chinaman, with the sentiment of superstition or 
religion, will take any kind of risk to accomplish), at the same time 
obtain a determination of their claims of American citizenship and 
place themselves in position to come and go at pleasure. Nor is this 
all that attaches to the evil, as shown hereinbefore. The Chinaman, 
having been declared an American citizen, is then privileged to bring 
his wife and children to this country; and as these men belong almost 
without exception to the laborer or cooly class (for it is a singular 
fact that very few members of the other classes, according to the 
claims advanced, were ever born in America), the object of the ex¬ 
clusion laws is thus being defeated to a very great extent. (See also 
Chapter VI, p. 67.) 

NUMBER APPLYING COMPARED WITH “ SECTION 6 ” APPLICANTS. 

As showing the increase in the applications by alleged natives and 
the decrease in applications by the fraudulent section 6 certificate 
class, the following figures are interesting: During the last six 
months of the calendar year 1904 there were 355 applications by 
alleged natives and 490 section 6 cases. During the first six months 
of the calendar year 1905 there were 313 alleged natives who ap¬ 
plied for admission and only 109 section 6 men. And during the last 
six months of the calendar year 1905 there were 562 applications 
by alleged natives and only 96 applications by section 6 men. This 
perhaps indicates that when the Chinamen found the section 6 road 
closed they were nonplussed for a while, but trying the native-born 
road as a substitute, and finding that it could be traveled with a 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


123 


fair degree of success, by careful prearrangement and coaching ol 
witnesses, they are now using that road to the exclusion of the other, 
and they will no doubt continue to make use of it for years to come 
with an ever-increasing stream, unless the policy of "requiring the 
most convincing of proof in such cases and of conducting the most 
exhaustive investigations possible is continued with unflagging zeal 
and industry. 

(See also, on the subject of natives in general. Senate Eeport Xo. 
776 (part 2), Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 121-124, 276- 
278, and 317-320; and on prostitutes, the same publication, pp. 124- 
125, 277-279, note; 303 and 444-s.) 

‘‘ NATIVE BORN ” CASES IN THE COURTS. 

As already pointed out, northern Xew York has been the favorite, 
although by no means the exclusive, locality for the use of the 
“ native-born ” plan as a means of entering the United States. North¬ 
ern Vermont w^as at one time quite as ])opular and was the scene of 
the perpetration of many frauds. (See p. 19.) In this connection 
a reqiort from the ins])ector in charge of the New York district, show¬ 
ing the number of Chinamen who have since the keeping of the record, 
beginning with the year 1900, alleged birth in the United States after 
voluntarily submitting to arrest for the purpose of obtaining a judi¬ 
cial decision as to their right to lie and remain in the United States is 
of much interest. As stated in said report, the total number of such 
Chinese so alleging nativity, shown therein, represents only about 
half of the cases actually tried in northern New York during the 
period beginning with 1900. The total number of such cases would 
therefore closely approximate 5,000. The following is extracted from 
the report mentioned, and a summary of the detailed tabulated state¬ 
ment accompanying such report is also given : 

Respectfully referriiif? to your request, made during a recent visit to this 
office, that I furnish you with a statement showing the year and place of birth 
of the Chinese alleging nativity tried in this district during the last several 
years, I have the honor to inclose the desired data herewith. 

* 4: * N: 4: ^ 

Our records of these cases commenced about 1900 and cover 2,127 cases, 
although there were a great many tried upon the same claim previous to that 
time.. It is the practice after the testimony has been transcribed to send a coi)y 
of the evidence to the inspector in charge nearest the place where the witness 
called in behalf of the defense resides for the purpose of securing rebuttal testi¬ 
mony if possible. It is a matter of common knowledge that there have been 
almost as many witnesses from the New England district as there have been 
from the New York district, consequently we do not have in this office a record 
of the cases where the witnesses claimed residence in the New England district. 

Prior to 1900, as the P>ureau well knows. Commissioners Paddock, Badger, and 
Munsell, in northern New York, and McGettrick. Johnson, and Young, of V(‘r- 
mont, tried a great many of these alleged native cases of which we have no record 
showing their alleged birthplace. I am reliably informed that prior to about five 
years ago practically all of the Chinese tried in northern New York and Ver- 
Inont claimed birth 7n San Francisco. About that time the Government began 
introducing testimony to show, in many cases at least, that the street addresses 
given in San Francisco by the witnesses for the defense did not, in fact, exist. 
As a result, in later years the defendants, through their witnesses, changed their 
alleged their birthplace to the smaller towns of California and other Western 
States, therefore the statement which is transmitted herewith does not show a 
fair estimate of the alleged births in San Francisco. A perusal of the street 
addresses given in some of the cases mentioned in the iiiclosed statement dis¬ 
closes that no such street numbers ever existed in that city. As instances, the 
testimony shows claim of birth at 778 and 805 Commercial street, 750 Dupont 



124 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


street, and 786 Johnson street, while as a matter of fact there never have been 
such numbers on the streets named. Many of the street addresses given, accord¬ 
ing to information I have received on the subject, appear to have been in the 
best residential section of San Francisco. 

Another matter to which I would call your attention is the alleged birth¬ 
places in the smaller towns of California and other Western States, as I have 
looked through the postal guide and in many instances have failed to find the 
names of such towns. True, they may have existed at the time the alleged birth 
took place, which is supposed to have occurred in the late seventies and early 
eighties, yet it is hardly probable. 

I also inclose, as requested, the testimony of two Chinamen who appeared as 
witnesses for both the defense and the Government, yet testifying in each 
instance to a different state of facts. One case is that of a witness named Jue 
Kie, who appeared in behalf of the Government before United States Com¬ 
missioner William V. S. Woodward, at Plattsburg, on May 1, 1901, in the cases 
of Tai Sing and Chan Ti Chung, and later for the defense at Ogdensburg, N. Y., 
before United States Commissioner Fred J. Gray, under date of August 12, 1901, 
in the case of Chu How. 

Another case inclosed is that of a witness named Jim Lee, who appeared in 
behalf of two defendants before United States Commissioner Gray at Ogdens¬ 
burg on July 25, 1901, in the cases of Lee Wing and Hip Pon, and later this same 
witness testified for the Government before the same commissioner on October 
16, 1902, in the case of Moy Yuen. 

In order to put a stop to practices of the kind above mentioned, the Govern¬ 
ment after considerable difficulty compelled witnesses to produce their certificate 
of residence for the purpose of identification. This requirement commenced in 
about 1900, and I am informd previous to that time it was a common practice 
for the same witnesses to appear both for and against the Government, naturally 
before different commissioners, as often as it was discreet to do so and not be 
caught on a perjury charge. If questioned as to his testifying in another case, 
he would naturally deny such charge, and in the absence of some identification 
it was impossible to refute his statement unless some officer should happen to 
recognize the witness. Our records bear this claim out, as we have quite a num¬ 
ber of cases where a witness of the same name appeared for and against the 
Government in different cases, but in the absence of the number of their certifi¬ 
cates of residence we have no means of determining definitely whether it is 
actually the same person who testified in each instance. 

Summary. 


Claimed year of birth. 

San 

Fran¬ 

cisco. 

Califor¬ 
nia, out¬ 
side of 
San Pi’an- 
cisco. 

States 
other 
than Cal¬ 
ifornia. 

Total for 
year. 

No date. 

23 

5 

1 

29 

1865 ... 

1 

2 


Q 

1866... 

2 



O 

9 

1867 ... 

2 

4 

1 

7 

1868 ....... 

1 

3 


A 

1866. 

6 

0 

2 

1 ,4 

1870. 

3 

3 

2 

Q 

1871... 

10 

7 

4 

O 

91 

1872 . 

13 

15 

fi 

Q'v 

1873... 

19 

12 

A 

1874 . 

21 

24 

15 

An 

1875 ... 

46 

34 

39 

10 

ou 

on 

1876... 

51 

16 

106 
1 /in 

1877... 

63 

58 

19 

1878 ..... 

67 

73 

IQ 

1 Kffc 

1879. 

75 

89 


1057 

1_QA 

1880..... 

91 

118 


lyo 

1881... 

87 

92 

oo 

2A 

440 

207 

1882... 

66 

116 


1883..... 

40 

90 

31 

417 

1884... 

43 

79 

loi 

1885. 

23 

49 

40 

on 

14o 

1886. 

18 

42 

17 

in 

y4 

1887... 

s 

17 

77 

1888 . 

2 

14 

lu 

e 

oO 

1889. 

1 

o 

D 

j 

21 

1890. 


4 

4 

1 

9 

7 

1891. 


1 

5 

Total... 

782 

998 

347 

o 

2,127 

















































CHAPTER X. 


COMPLAINTS. 

Scope of chapter. Complaints usually of indefinite character; there¬ 
fore denial general. Bureau’s constant attitude. Complaints in general. 
Specific cases cited and explained: The Miss Miner incident; Boston 
general arrest; Triick-Chow Tszchi case; Kentwell case; Wong Kai Kah 
article; Chen Chin Tao case; Pong Bow incident; investigation of New 
York office on complaint of Reverend Parks; Jin Fuey Moy complaint; 
Liang Tu, the tracomatous student; Thomas-Buffington incident; King 
brothers and sister case; arrest of Charley Leung; 11 San Francisco 
students; Anderson, Stevenson, and Baltz incident; IPrather-Richardson- 
Scott incident; 13 University of California students and Kong Yin Tet 
case; Horn Kim petition; Wells and Hamer damage suits; Tallentire 
complaint in re Chan Gee; Yee Ten Wah case; alleged blackmailing at 
Hongkong; Na Lay case. 

It is proposed in this chapter to allude to, and briefly but frankly 
discuss, every complaint made to the Commissioner-General of Immi¬ 
gration with regard to the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws 
which has been sufficiently explicit in character to render an identifi¬ 
cation of the persons and circumstances possible. This discussion, 
which will be arranged as nearly chronologically as practicable, 
should be prefaced, how^ever, with a statement to the effect that the 
majority of the complaints which have been made, either by individ¬ 
uals or by the public press, have been of a general character, and it 
has been impossible to obtain from the complainants a citation of any 
specific instances upon which such general complaints were supposed 
to be based. Matters of this kind of course permit of only a general 
and comprehensive denial, springing from a knowledge of the Bu¬ 
reau’s own policy and efforts toward an efficient but just administra¬ 
tion of the laws, and from a high degree of confidence in the officers 
who have been designated as inspectors in charge of the various dis¬ 
tricts and ports of entry ,^a confidence which is the result of experience. 

POLICY OF BUREAU IN ENFORCING LAWS. 

The attitude of the Bureau of Immigration has always been this: 
A strict but fair interpretation and administration of the law, haying 
constantly in view the exclusion of those Chinese whom it was plainly 
the intent of Congress to exclude, but just as emphatically and unre¬ 
servedly holding in mind the duty to admit promptly and courteously 
such as it was the intent of Congress and of the Governments of this 
country and China to allow access to the United States, provided 
always that the requirements of law with regard to such parties were 
substantially complied with. 

If it were deemed either necessary or modest to do so, a number of 
illustrations of the Bureau’s fairness in this respect might be drawn 
from its files. For instaiice, there might be quoted a letter dated 

126 


126 ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

July 21, 1905 (per files), addressed to the Commisiioner-General by 
the chief interpreter at San Francisco, reporting that the statement 
had been made and agreed to in a meeting of representative Chinese 
merchants of that city that they did not know of a case in which a 
merchant, returning to this country from a visit to China, had been 
denied admission at the port of San Francisco, and that the Bureau 
of Immigration is regarded as the friend of all Chinese engaged in 
bona fide business operations and is feared only by such as are con¬ 
ducting smuggling schemes and other fraudulent practices. (See 
also Bu. Im. file Nos. 11238, 11680, and 13983 C.) 

Moreover, from the very first, the Bureau has carefully instructed 
its field officers to follow the above-mentioned policy, and has called 
them to account in no uncertain terms for the least dereliction in 
this respect. One such instance was that of the case of Chin Gow, a 
Chinaman who applied for admission at Port Townsend, Wash., in 
June, 1903, and was denied by the collector of customs on a report 
made by one of the Bureau’s field officers. Examination of the record 
showing that the evidence contained therein was sufficient to justify 
the landing of the applicant, the Bureau recommended that the ap¬ 
peal be sustained (which action was promptly taken by the Depart¬ 
ment), and, as the Bureau conceived that the inspector’s report con¬ 
templated an arbitrary rejection of the applicant, he was sharply 
rej^rimanded and advised as follows: 

In consideration of the extraordinary nature of the action taken in the case 
of Chin Gow, the Bureau feels constrained by a sense of duty to remind you 
that it is no less obligatory upon officers charged with the administration of the 
Chinese-exclusion laws to admit those Chinese persons who are entitled to 
entry, under the treaty and laws, than to deny those who are not so entitled. 
(Bu. Im. file No. 8619 C.) 

SPIRIT ACTUATING COMPLAINTS. 

As bearing upon the general subject of complaints it is deemed 
proper to insert at this point the following, from the last annual 
report of the Commissioner-General (pp. 78-79) : 

In no branch of its widespread activities does the Bureau believe that it has 
so thoroughly succeeded in carrying into effective operation the purpose of the 
laws committed to its charge as in the exclusion of Chinese of the classes which 
it is the professed desire of both this Government and the Empire of China to 
keep out of the United States. As pointed out in former reports, there are many 
and serious obstacles, both in the circumstances to be dealt with by adminis¬ 
trative officers and in the opposition of many citizens of this country to the 
policy of selecting the Chinese alone as subjects for exclusion, that exact of 
the Bureau a degree of vigilance and resourcefulness unexampled, it is believed, 
in the administration of any other legislation on the statute books. Repre¬ 
sentatives of the large missionary interests do not hesitate to express openly 
their disapproval of the law or to denounce those whose duty it is to administeV 
the law. The commercial interests of the counti’y, while more prudent and self- 
restrained in their utterances on the subject, are equally opposed both to the 
policy and to the means necessarily used to make that policy effective. A large 
and somewhat vociferous element sympathizes with the foregoing classes. This 
element is composed in part of those who can not see any greater risk at stake 
than the probable reduction of the price of labor in this country, of those who 
are persuaded that Chinese would engage in agricultural labor in the Southern 
States and constitute a more reliable system than that now available there, 
and of those who hold the illogical opinion that because alleged undesirable 
aliens of the other races are being allowed to enter the United States this 
country is compelled by some fancied rule of consistency or propriety to admit 
other undesirable aliens of the Chinese race. 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 127 

Of course it is not questioned that all of these persons are entitled to entertain 
such views, or any views, but the only proper means of giving them expression 
in law is by a resort to Congress. The course pursued, however, is denunciation 
of the officers who enforce the law and misrepresentation of their acts, made 
either in willful disregard of the truth or in ignorance, and published abroad 
either through the public press or by any other means which promises to’secure 
such frequent repetition as may serve to invest falsehood with a semblance of 
truth. Occasionally such opposition finds expression in language, if not overt 
acts of resistance to the officers, and instances are not lacking of judicial officers 
justifying the release of Chinese found unlawfully in the United States, on the 
ground that they have never approved the law, one such officer going so far as 
to denounce it as “ a relic of medifeval barbarism,” and one judge suspending 
sentence of deportation indefinitely in the case of a Chinese defendant who could 
not be discharged upon the evidence even by one who was opposed to exclusion. 
Such instances of judicial resistance are rare, fortunately, but they serve to 
show the attitude of opposition which conflicts with the discharge of their duty 
by Chinese inspectors. 

That it has recently become so pronounced affords the Bureau, and should the 
public likewise, the most convincing evidence that the present administration is 
effective, despite the extent and persistency of the resistance above described. 

Now, to take up in regular order such complaints as have been pre¬ 
ferred in sufficiently explicit terms to enable the Bureau to investigate 
them, and to satisfactorily answer them of the investigation resulted 
in showing that they were not justified, or to take appropriate action 
to rectify them where the investigation showed any justification 
whatever for the preference of the charges. 

Miss miner’^ protest. 

First in order of titne—and j)erhaps also in importance, for the 
incident has been used and reused until it is threadbare, as an illus¬ 
tration of the harshness wdth which the immigration officials enforce 
the laws—is what has come to be known as the “ Miss Miner com¬ 
plaint.” On September 12, 1902, two Chinese students applied for 
admission at San Francisco, Cal. These students had not in their 
possession the certificate required by section 6 of the act of Congress 
approved July 5, 1884, but offered papers consisting of passports 
Avritten in the Chinese language and signed by the Chinese Auceroy, 
Li Hung Chang, to which passports was attached a translation signed 
by the United States consul at Tien Tsin. The San Francisco officers 
(quite properly, it is thought) refused to admit the students on the 
papers mentioned, holding that they did not constitute a compliance 
with the mandatory provisions of the act mentioned, and that, there¬ 
fore, there was no alternative but to obey the said law. The Depart¬ 
ment, however, did Avhat it could, by forbidding the deportation of 
the tAvo students until sufficient time had been alloAved them to obtain 
from China the prescribed certificates. 

MTiile they were aAvaiting the receipt of the papers, upon repre¬ 
sentation that they needed medical attention, the Department issued 
orders that they should be alloAved to enter a hospital under bond 
conditioned for their return to the steamship company, in Avhose cus¬ 
tody they were held, as soon as they recovered. Nothing further Avas 
heard from these cases, except in the way of public denunciation 
through the press of the alleged inhuman treatment the students had 
received, until, to the surprise of the Department, it learned through 
an appeal from the excluding decision of the collector of customs at 
Portal, N. Dak., that the two students had departed from San Fran¬ 
cisco into Canada, and had endeavored to effect an entrance through 



128 


ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSIOlSr LAWS. 


the border port mentioned. Inasmuch as they were still without the 
evidence required by law to establish their right to enter the United 
States, the appeal was necessarily denied, and since they had left 
San Francisco without complying with the condition named in the 
bond given in their behalf, directions were issued to proceed against 
the obligor on said bond. 

This action produced a protest from Miss Luella ^liner, the cus¬ 
todian of the two students, who claimed that she had the tacit per¬ 
mission of the customs officers at San Francisco to leave that port 
with her charges for Canada, a claim wffiich, however, was denied 
by the customs officers upon inquiry of them. Although more than 
one year had now elapsed since the arrival of the students, the cer¬ 
tificates had not been forthcoming; a circumstance for which, of 
course, either the students themselves or the Chinese Government 
were to blame, as such certificates could not be vised by an American 
diplomatic or consular officer until issued by one of the many Chinese 
officials in China, authorized to take such action. However, as a 
further concession, upon representations from the Chinese minister 
at this capital, the order directing suit on the bond was rescinded, 
and an additional period of three months allowed in whi^h to obtain 
the certificates. Ultimately, in January, 1903, the certificates were 
produced, and although they were defective, in that only the Chinese 
duplicate contained the signature of the Chinese Taot’ai, that defect 
was waived, and the two student^ entered the United States at Buf¬ 
falo, proceeding to their destination, Oberlin, Ohio. Of course a 
strict compliance with the terms of law would have involved the 
return of the students to China on the vessel on which they arrived 
at San Francisco, but, in spite of the leniency and accommodation 
exercised in the case, it has, as above stated, been made the basis of 
complaints from almost every conceivable source. (Bu. Im. file No. 
6147 C.) 

BOSTON GENERAL ARREST. 

On October 8, 1903, the United States district attorney at Boston 
was informed by the police department of that city that there w^ere 
many Chinamen in Boston in violation of the Federal law; that there 
existed a certain society among the Chinese residents known as the 
Hop Sing Tong, or Highbinders; that this society levied blackmail 
upon Chinese persons who were in Boston in violation of the exclu¬ 
sion laws, by extorting from them certain sums for alleged protection, 
under threat of giving information that would lead to their arrest 
and deportation. These demands had become so burdensome that 
further payments were finally refused, and, as a result, an open fight 
ensued in which one member of the Hop Sing Tong was killed, and 
several injured. The police department felt unable to cope with the 
situation and called upon the United States authorities for assistance. 
This led to the occurrence of what has been termed “ The Boston 
Eaid,” or “ The general arrest of Chinese in Boston,” an incident 
which stands, however^ isolated in the enforcement of the Chinese 
exclusion laws, but which has been made the excuse for serious and 
far-reaching complaint. 

Upon the representations made to the United States attorney by 
the police department of Boston, and acting under the advice of saiS 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 129 

attorney, the immigration officials, with considerable reluctance, con¬ 
sented to attempt to rectify the evil conditions complained of by caus¬ 
ing the deportation of those Chinese (of wdiom they were already 
aware there Avere considerable numbers), who had no lawful right 
to reside in the United States, and Avho constituted the “ bone of con¬ 
tention ” in the premises. The object of making the arrest general 
was, of course, to avoid the immediate scattering of the guilty per¬ 
sons, should arrests be attempted singly. There Avere accordingly 
arrested on the evening of October 11, 234 Chinese persons who could 
not produce at once the required evidence of their right of residence. 
All but 112 of these were released within tAvelve or fourteen hours, 
and immediately upon producing the evidence of their laAvful resi¬ 
dence. Of the said 112, 04 AAere released on bond, but 3 being 
committed to jail, 5 were immediately tried before a United States 
commissioner and ordered deported, and 11 more Avere released on 
producing their papers, Avhich they had theretofore refused to show 
in court. Of the 94 Avho Avere released on bond, seA^eral escaped, for¬ 
feiting their bond, and thus furnishing a reasonable assurance that 
they Avere here in violation of law, and the remaining 45 have been 
deported to China. These facts speak for themselves. The dis¬ 
turbance Avas elfectually quelled, and about 20 per cent of the total 
number of Chinamen arrested have been removed from the United 
States at the expense of this Government. (Bu. Im. file No. 9678 C.) 

ALLEGED DISCOURTESY TO DIPLOMATIC OFFICER. 

There was forwarded to this Department on December 21, 1903, 
by the Department of State a protest dated the 15 th of the same 
month, from the Chinese minister at this capital against certain 
alleged discourtesies shoAvn by Chinese Inspector George G. Triick, 
of WinsloAV, Ariz., to Mr. Chow Tszchi, secretary of the Chinese 
legation, on or about September 26, 1903. This protest was immedi¬ 
ately forAvarded to the inspector in charge of the New Mexico- 
Arizona district, and a reply was received shoAving that Inspector 
Triick had met Mr. CIioaa^ at the station in Winslow, and not knowing 
him had requested information as to whether he was a Chinaman, 
and being ansAvered in the affirmative asked for his name and certain 
data as to his destination, etc., in order that the inspector might be 
able to make a report to his superior officer of the fact that such a 
Chinese person had passed through that section, the inspector being 
under the impression that he Avas a transit passenger. Mr. Chow 
indignantly refused to furnish any information, and told the in¬ 
spector that he could telegraph to the President if he wanted to know 
Avho he was, as he Avas secretary of the Chinese legation in Washing¬ 
ton. Inspector Triick denied having treated the secretary Avith any¬ 
thing but the utmost courtesy, and stated further that finally Mr. 
ChoAv handed him his card, aa hereupon he told him that if this had 
been done in the first instance no difficulty Avould have arisen. 

As the said inspector furnished an affidavit from a disinterested 
eyeAvitness corroborating his version of the affair, the Bureau ac¬ 
cepted his reply as satisfactory. The Chine^se minister was advised 
informally of the circumstances, and expressed his entire satisfaction 
with the action which had been taken. Later, hoAvever, about the 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-9 



130 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

time the boycott agitation was becoming so prominent, a complaint 
was made to the President by a prominent neAvspaper man, citing the 
Triick case as an instance of discourtesy and harshness in the enforce¬ 
ment of the Chinese exclusion laws. The case was then again re¬ 
viewed, and on June 17, 1905, a letter of reprimand was addressed 
by the Department to Inspector Triick, calling him to account for 
having given offense to the representative of the Chinese Govern¬ 
ment, and admonishing him to display better judgment if similar 
circumstances again traspired in his experience as an officer. (Bu. 
Im. file Nos. 9366 and 11158 C.) 

THE KENTWELL CASE. 

On February 18, 1904, Mr. L. K. Kentwell, a person of Chinese 
descent, arrived at the port of Honolulu, HaAvaii, without having 
in his possession any papers, certificates, or credentials whatever. It 
became necessary to detain him* on board the vessel for a short time 
until his status could be investigated and his rights determined. 
The inspector in charge was summoned, and in less than an hour after 
his arrival at the dock Mr. Kentwell was landed. NotAAuthstanding 
the fact that in August, 1905, Mr. Kentwell called at the office of 
the inspector in charge at Honolulu for the purpose of securing in¬ 
formation and advice in connection with his contemplated trip to the 
mainland of the United States, and then discussed frankly and 
openly his status as a Chinese person and availed himself of the 
good counsel given him, which resulted in his landing in the United 
States shortly thereafter without any difficulty whatever, he has, 
during recent months, addressed several letters of complaint to the 
President and to the Department complaining of the incident Avhich 
occurred in Honolulu in February, 1904, and he persists in making 
such complaint, notwithstanding the fact that he has been made 
aAvare of the Department’s knoAAdedge of his having expressed him¬ 
self thoroughly satisfied in August, 1905, Avith the treatment ac¬ 
corded him in February, 1904. (Bu. Im. file No. 14424 C.) 

ARTICLE BY WONG KAI KAH. 

Another complaint is that which appeared in the North American 
KevieAv of March, 1904, Avritten by Commissioner Wong Kai Kah, 
which has been discussed at length in the chapter on “ Keg-ulations ” 
(p. 23). 

CHEN CHIN TAO AND FIFTEEN STUDENTS. 

On July 31, 1904, Mr. Chen Chin Tao, inspector of education for 
the two KAvong provinces, reported to the Chinese minister at this 
capital that he and 15 Government students arrived in San Francisco 
on the 18th of that month, after having entered the United States 
at Sumas, Wash., on the 14th, and complained that although they 
arrived at the immigration station at Sumas at 10 a. m., they were 
• not alloAved to leave that place until 4 o’clock in the afternoon*, when 
it was too late to catch the train from Sumas south, as the immigra¬ 
tion officer “ was too particular in examining our certificates.” This 
matter was investigated, and it was found, not only that every pos- 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 131 

sible courtesy had been extended to this party but that the officers 
had inconvenienced themselves in many ways to accommodate the 
students and see that they were comfortably cared for while in 
Sumas. It was also found that Mr. Chen Chin Tao upon arrival 
had requested that he and his party Jbe allowed to remain on the 
train on which they reached Sumas from Vancouver, a request 
which, he being an official of the Chinese Government, might have 
been complied with as far as he himself was concerned; but it was 
necessary, of course, to examine his companions, not only under 
the Chinese exclusion law, but under the provisions of the immigra¬ 
tion laws relating to all aliens, especially the medical examination, 
and as there is only one train a day through Sumas, it was impos¬ 
sible to airange so that the students could leave that place on the 
day of their arrival. This was explained in due course to the Chinese 
minister, and as nothing to the contrary has ever been heard, it is 
supposed that official was satisfied with the explanation. (Bu. Im. 
file No. 12585 C.) 

PONG BOW DEPORTED TO CANADA. 

On August 22, 1904, a Chinaman by the name of Pong Bow was 
discovered by the immigration officials at Niagara Falls, N. Y., 
attempting to effect a surreptitious entry into the United States, 
on a Grand Trunk train. The said Chinaman stated that he had 
resided in Terre Haute, Ind., for fourteen years, and had passed 
through Niagara Falls en route to Toronto about ten days previously 
on an excursion ticket, the return coupon of which he still had in his 
possession. He also produced a letter from the mayor of Terre 
Haute, addressed “ to whom it may concern,” to the effect that Pong 
Bow was going to Niagara Falls and would like to visit Toronto, if 
possible. This letter had not been presented to any immigration 
officer prior to the Chinaman’s departure, nor had he taken any steps 
whatever to comply with the provisions of the exclusion laws relat¬ 
ing to laborers departing from this country wdth the intention of 
returning. Niagara Falls not being a port of entry, the inspector 
in charge refused to consider the Chinaman’s case, and he returned 
to Toronto. Applications were made by several parties on behalf 
of Pong Bow, for information as to how he could obtain readmission. 
He was advised through these parties that he would have to proceed 
to a regular port of entry, the nearest one being Malone, N. Y., 
and make application for readmission, to obtain which it would be 
necessary for him to show that he had been a member of the exempt 
classes for at least a year prior to his departure, as a laborer having 
once departed without complying with the provisions of law could 
not be readmitted at any port. 

Notwithstanding this advice, hoAvever, on September 4, 1905, this 
Chinaman obtained possession of an excursion ticket to Buffalo, and 
managed to conceal himself on a Grand Trunk train until he had 
crossed into the United States. He was discovered when the train 
reached Black Eock, Buffalo, and the immigration officials endeav¬ 
ored to induce the railroad officials to return him into Canada, to 
which request they acceded. But when the attempt was made to 
put the scheme into execution, the Canadian customs officers refused 
to permit Pong Bow to recross unless he paid $500 head tax. The 


132 ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

Chinaman having entered the United States in violation of law, and 
it being impossible to dispose of him in the manner above-mentioned, 
no alternative remained except to place him under arrest, which was 
accordingly done upon a warrant obtained in due manner froni a 
United States commissioner., Feeling, however, that the deportation 
of the Chinaman to his native country would perhaps be a greater 
hardship than his action deserved, the inspector in charge at Buffalo 
adopted the extraordinary procedure of placing the facts before the 
controller of customs at Vancouver, with a view to having the head 
tax requirement waived, if possible, and thus permit of the China¬ 
man’s return to Canada instead of to China. 

On September 5, 1905, Pong Bow was tried before a United States 
commissioner and ordered deported to Canada, with the proviso that 
in the event that Canada should demand a head tax the deportation 
should be to China. The Canadian officials had, however, acceded 
to the request of the inspector in charge, and the Chinaman was 
deported to Canada, since which time, it is understood, he has resided 
in London, Ontario. 

This case has been the cause of complaints from various parties, 
including a number of citizens -of Terre Haute, who seem to feel that 
the Chinaman’s exclusion from this country, brought about by his 
own foolish and inexcusable action, is an undue hardship or injustice. 
As some of these complaints intimated that Pong Bow had been a 
merchant prior to his departure, the officer in charge of the district 
in which Terre Haute is located was instructed to make an investiga¬ 
tion concerning his status. The result of that investigation was the 
discovery that the Chinaman had been engaged as a peddler and laun- 
dryman. It also transpired that, notwithstanding the fact that he 
had entered this country in 1887, and had been occupied here as a 
laborer, he did not register under either of the registration acts, and 
w^as therefore an unlawful resident of the United States at the time 
of his departure therefrom. (Bu. Im. file No. 13171-C.) 

COMPLAINT OF REV. LEIGHTON PARKS. 

On January 27, 1905, a special officer of the immigration service 
was directed to conduct an investigation in New York City regarding 
certain statements which had been made to the Department by Eev. 
Leighton Parks, to the effect that the Chinese residents of New 
York City were in continual dread of the Chinese inspectors, and 
that they were blackmailed and subjected to other unjust treatment 
by such officers. The following quotation from a letter addressed on 
March 18, 1905, to the President shows the result of the investigated 
complaint above mentioned, and also furnishes a striking illustration 
of how easy it is to state in a general way that the officials charged 
with the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion laws are given to harsh 
and unjust practices: 

(1) That Rev. Leighton Parks reiterated to Inspector Braun the statements 
made to the President and to this Department, but admitted that the informa¬ 
tion imparted was based solely upon assertions made to him by various Chinese 
persons, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain any evidence 
of a conclusive character in the premises. 

(2) That in pursuance to an arrangement made by Mr. Parks, Inspector 
Braun called upon one Guy Maine, said to be the chik informant concerning 
the matters complained of; that this Chinaman could furnish, when first inter- 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 138 

viewed, no further data than that already obtained from ^Ir. Parks; indulged 
in a lengthy harrangue with regard to the injustice of the Chinese exclusion 
laws in general, and the discrimination and hardships to which his countrymen 
were in consequence subjected; that upon being told that the inspector desired 
some definite tangible proof of the charge that the officials in New York were 
acting dishonestly, he promised to furnish such proof within a few dsrys. 

(3) That Guy Maine later advised the inspector of a specific case, to wit, 
that of Ah Quan and Ah Fong, two Chinese laundrymen located at 307 Atlantic 
avenue, Brooklyn, on whom, he stated, a person alleging himself to be a 
Chinese inspector, called on the 2d of February. 1905, displayed a badge, and 
demanded the production of the Chinamen’s certificates of residence; and when 
they were exhibited claimed that they were not correct and that the Chinamen 
were under arrest, but if they would pay him $30 he would release them and 
say nothing further about it; that they refused to pay him, whereupon he de¬ 
parted, saying he would return the following day and arrest them. That 
immediately after the departure of this supposed inspector the laundrymen 
called upon a merchant, one Joe Chue, of No. 16 Pell street, asking his advice, 
and he advised them not to pay the inspector if he called again, and that the 
said supposed inspector had not repeated his call upon them. Inspector Braun 
interviewed these three Chinamen and questioned them, both separately and in 
each other’s presence, as a result of which he concluded that the story narrated 
was true, i. e., that the laundrymen had actually been called upon by some per¬ 
son claiming to be an inspector, and that the circumstances stated had occurred. 

(4) That the three Chinamen in question refused to make affidavit to the 
above-related circumstances, claiming that they feared if they did, some harm 
would come to them; and that they also refused to accompany Inspector Braun 
to the office of the inspector in charge for the purpose of identifying any of his 
officials as the person who had attempted to obtain $30 from the two laundry¬ 
men ; and that Guy Maine suggested that the only manner in which the 
Chinamen residing in New York could be induced to testify against persons 
charged with improper conduct would be the issuance to such Chinese of “ letters 
of immunity from future molestation,” which, in his opinion, would allay 
their fears and induce them to testify frankly. 

(5) That during the course of his investigation in Chinatown the inspector 
heard many rumors to the effect that bribery and “ graft ” were being practiced 
continually, but it was impossible to reduce such rumors to any definite or con¬ 
crete shape; that he also learned incidentally that Joe Chue, the merchant 
above mentioned, is one of the most daring smugglers in this country; and that 
Dr. Jin Fuey Moy (the ex-employee of this Service, with regard to whom a re¬ 
port has just been furnished the Secretary to the President by the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration), is also actively engaged in smuggling, blackmailing, 
and similar pursuits. 

(6) Finally, after receiving further instructions from this Department, 
Inspector Braun arranged with INIr. Parks, Guy Maine, Ah Quan, and Ah 
Fong, a meeting with the Chinese inspectors and other employees of the office 
of the inspector in charge at New York, and that such meeting took place in 
the laundry located at 3()7 Atlantic avenue on March 14, 1905, from which meet¬ 
ing Guy Maine absented himself upon the excuse that he had other business to 
attend to; and that, as a result of such meeting, both Ah Quan and Ah Fong, as 
well as another Chinaman employed in their laundry, stated unhesitatingly 
and positively that none of the said employees was the alleged inspector who 
called upon them and attempted to extort $30 blackmail. 

It seems clear from this report that the only specific instance which the 
informers have been able to state, so far as the employees of this Department 
are implicated in the charges made by Mr. Parks, is without foundation in 
fact, at least to the extent that whoever the person may have been who 
attempted to levy the blackmail on Ah Quan and Ah Fong, he was not a Chinese 
inspector or any other official connected with the office of the inspector in 
charge at New York. (Bu. Im. file No. 13732 C). 

INSPECTOR CHARGED WITH BLACKMAIL. 

At about the same time as the above-mentioned complaint was 
made, another Avas submitted to the Secretary to the President by 
Dr. Jin Fuey Moy, of New York, City, charging that one of the 


134 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


Chinese inspectors located at Philadelphia and a Chinese interpreter 
at that time stationed in St. Louis had been guilty of blackmailing and 
other improper practices. This complaint was investigated by the 
same officer and at the same time as the one last above cited, with the 
result that said officer learned, in an entirely independent manner, what 
was already surmised by the Bureau, viz, that Dr. Jin Fuey Moy was 
actuated by spite in preferring the charges, he having been dismissed 
from the immigration service some time prior, partly upon testimony 
furnished by the interpreter charged by him with misconduct, and 
having been discredited by the inspector in connection with certain 
investigations in Philadelphia with regard to the unlawful residence 
there of Chinese laborers. (Bu. Im. file No. 13732 C.) 

EXCLUSION ON ACCOUNT OF TRACHOMA.* 

I 

On May 2, 1905, a letter was written to the Department by the 
president of the University of California, submitting a complaint 
to the effect that one Liang Tu had been refused admission at San 
Francisco, although he presented a regular section 6 certificate as a 
student. Investigation of this case showed that Liang Tu had been 
rejected under the provisions of law relating to all aliens, he having 
been found afflicted with trachoma, a dangerous contagious disease 
of the eye. (Bu. Im. file No. 12264 C.) 

CHARGES AGAINST INSPECTOR AT PITTSBURG. 

Under date of May 12, 1905, a letter signed by an operative of the 
secret service division of the Treasury Department was referred to 
the Bureau of Immigration by the chief of said division, in which 
letter it was stated that information had reached the operative to the 
effect that the Chinese inspector stationed at Pittsburg was engaged 
in a regular system of blackmailing Chinese residents of that place 
and vicinity. A special inspector was detailed to Pittsburg to make 
a thorough investigation regarding these charges. This officer 
afforded the persons from whom the secret-service operative had 
obtained his information, namely, the judge of the United States 
district court and the judge’s sisters, two ladies engaged in mission¬ 
ary work among the Chinese, every possible opportunity to sub¬ 
stantiate their charges against the inspector. They could produce 
only one witness, a “ Christian Chinaman,” and although they were 
allowed to interrogate him in their own manner, and to ask him 
numerous leading questions, they failed to obtain from the said wit¬ 
ness a single statement which in any way implicated the Chinese 
inspector of blackmailing or any other improper practice. (Bu. Im. 
file No. 13981 C.) 

KING BROTHERS AND SISTER IN BOSTON. 

An incident which occurred at Boston on June 1, 1905, has been the 
cause of so much adverse criticism that it seems proper to include in 
this paper a copy of a letter addressed by the Department on June 9, 
1905, to one of the complainants, in Avhich letter a statement of the 
facts and of the law attaching to the case was given in detail. 

Your letter of the 3d instant, callinj? attention to the case of the three King 
brothers and their sister, subjects of China, who recently applied for admission 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


135 


at the port of Boston, en route from England to their home in China, has, by 
direction of the President, been referred to this Department for acknowledg¬ 
ment and consideration, and in reply thereto I have to say: 

In your communication you state that you witnessed certain indignities to 
which these aliens were subjected by Mr. Schell, the Chinese inspector, and 
that you wish to protest against the unjust treatment and unnecessary indig¬ 
nities accorded them on their arrival. 

From such information as has been furnished the Department thus far it 
appears that the occurrences construed by you as indignities and unjust treat¬ 
ment were the result not of any unwarranted or discourteous action on the 
part of the officials but of the failure of the aliens to secure from their Gov¬ 
ernment, and present upon arrival, certain certificates required by law. 

The treaty, laws, and regulations governing the admission into the United 
States of Chinese aliens, for the purpose of transit, distinguish between those of 
the exempt class, such as teachers, students, merchants, or travelers, and those 
of the excluded class, i. e., laborers. Section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, pro¬ 
vides, in effect, that every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be 
entitled to come within the United States, “ and who shall be about to come to 
the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled 
by the Chinese Government, or of such other foreign government of which at 
the time such Chinese person shall be a subject, in each case to be evidenced 
by a certificate issued by such government, which certificate shall be in the 
English language and shall show such permission, with the name of the per¬ 
mitted person in his or her proper signature, and which certificate shall state 
the individual, family, and tribal name in full, title or official rank, if any, the 
age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or 
profession, when and where and how long pursued, and place of residence of 
the person to whom the certificate is issued, and that such person is entitied 
“ under the law to come into the United States.” If the certificate be sought 
for the purpose of travel for curiosity, it must also state whether the applicant 
intends to pass through or travel within the United States. 

The law further provides that “ the certificates provided for in this act, and 
the identity of the person named therein, shall, before such person goes on 
board any -vessel to proceed to the United States, be viseed by the indorsement 
of the diplomatic representatives of the United States in the foreign country 
from which such certificate issues, or of the consular representative of the 
United States at the port or place from which the person named in the certifi¬ 
cate is about to depart; ♦ * * Such certificate viseed as aforesaid shall be 
prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein and shall be produced to the 
collector of customs of the port in the district in the United States at which the 
person named therein shall arrive, and afterwards produced to the proper 
authorities of the United States whenever lawfully demanded, and shall be 
the sole evidence permissible on the part of the persons so producing the same 
to establish a right of entry into the United States.” 

The United States court, in construing this provision of law, which is now in 
full force and effect, in a case where it was claimed on the part of a Chinese 
alien that she was entitled to offer parol testimony to show that she did not 
belong to the prohibited class, calls attention to the obvious meaning of the 
provision in the following words: 

“ The certificate is required to be produced by all Chinese persons other than 
laborers claiming the right to enter this country, and such certificate is to be 
the sole evidence of their right to land. Unless, therefore, the whole section is 
to be disregarded and the obvious intention of Congress frustrated the certifi¬ 
cate must in all cases be exacted. To say that because applicant has utterly 
neglected to comply with the law and has produced no certificate, therefore her 
right to land may be established by other evidence, would be an absurd conclu¬ 
sion founded upon the mere letter of the statute and in obvious contravention 
of its spirit and meaningi.” (In re Wo Tai Li, 48 Fed. Rep., 6G8.) 

The three King brothers and their sister failed to secure from the Chinese 
Government the certificates required. Had they been in possession of these 
certificates they would at once have been permitted to land upon exhibiting them 
to the proper officer upon arrival. In practice it rarely occurs that Chinese 
aliens, members of the exempt class, possessing and exhibiting these certificates 
upon arrival in this country, are delayed longer than other passengers. They 
are landed with the other passengers, are entitled to remain in the country as 
long as they please, and may go wherever they desire. 


136 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


The officers of the Immigration Service are sworn to administer the law, and 
when the Chinese aliens referred to in yonr communication presented themselves 
for admission to this country at the port of Boston without the certificate 
required by law, the only course open to tlie ofiicers of the Government was to 
take steps to have them returned to the country from whence they came, or to 
require their compliance with the laws and regulations governing the transit 
through the country of Chinese of the excluded class. These laws and regula¬ 
tions require, as a condition precedent to the privilege of transit, that Chinese 
aliens furnish photographs and bonds and comply with certain other require¬ 
ments. 

Reports which have been received from the commissioner of immigration at 
Boston indicate that they appreciated the plight in which the aliens referred to 
found themselves, and extended to them every consideration and courtesy possi¬ 
ble under the circumstances. It appears from the reports furnished this Depart¬ 
ment that the aliens were not in i)ossessi6n of photographs, nor did their friends 
make any arrangements to furnish bonds, and that Inspector Schell volunteered 
to attend to these matters for them in order to facilitate their landing. Efforts 
were made by him to secure a photographer to go to the steamer, but these 
efforts being unsuccessful, arrangements were made to take their photographs 
at a studio. As they were about to depart from the steamer, however, a number 
of newspaper men with cameras endeavored to get a snap shot of the young 
lady, who was dressed in her native costume. The immigration officers endeav¬ 
ored to have the newspaper men withdraw, but to no avail. Subsequently, how¬ 
ever, the party passed out of another part of the vessel into carriages at a point 
where it was too dark for the newspaper men to secure a picture. Had it not 
been for the time lost in this manner arrangements which would have admitted 
of the aliens proceeding on their journey the day of their arrival would have 
been completed. As it was the officers were able to return to the vessel with 
the photographs and bonds shortly after 9 o’clock the next morning, when the 
party was permitted to proceed. 

The officers state that every possible courtesy was extended to the King 
family, and that the delay in their landing was due'entirely to the fact that they 
were without the required certificates and to time spent in trying to avoid the 
newspaper photographers. 

In view of the fact that the reports received from the commissioner of immi¬ 
gration at Boston indicate that every consideration and courtesy possible under 
the circumstances were accorded these students, the Department requests that 
you furnish it with statements describing more particularly the indignities to 
which you allege they were subjected by Inspector in Charge Schell' together 
with more specific information as to the Innniliating and unjust treatment 
which you claim was accorded them. If the inspectors at Boston have been 
discourteous in the discharge of their duty, or have been guilty of any action 
not justified by law, the Department is anxious to be informed thereof, so that 
it may take proper steps to prevent any further cause for complaint (Bu. Im. 
file No. 14064 C.) 


CHARLIE LEUNG SLEPT ON HIS RIGHTS. 

On June 21, 1905, there was received a petition signed by a number 
of parties and presented by Hon. W. II. Draper, requesting the Presi¬ 
dent’s interference in the case of one Charlie Leung, a Chinese person 
who had been arrested at Salem, N. Y., on April 29, 1905, and who 
had been ordered deported to China by the United States commis¬ 
sioner before whom tried. The only reply which could be made to 
this complaint was that the officer who made the arrest found Charlie 
Leung engaged as a laborer, and in obedience to section 6 of the act of 
May G, 1892, as amended by the act of November 3, 1893, finding that 
the Chinaman had not the certificate of residence prescribed, secured 
a warrant for his arrest and turned him over to the United States 
marshal, and that although the law provides for an appeal by a 
Chinese person so arrested, the Chinaman had not availed himself of 
that right, and therefore stood in the position of having been judi¬ 
cially and conclusively declared to be in the United States in violation 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


137 


of law. It is understood that, through the Department of Justice, 
arrangements were made to have the case reopened or appealed, with 
a view to introducing further testimony to show that the Chinaman 
was entitled to be and remain in the United States. (Bu. Im. file 
No. 13142 C.) 

THE ELEVEN SAN FRANCISCO STUDENTS. 

On July 13, 1905, the president of the University of California 
forwarded a complaint preferred by the professor of oriental lan¬ 
guages and literatures in the said "university touching 11 specific 
cases in which the complainant alleged that Chinese students had 
not been landed as promptly and with as much courtesy as they 
should. Because of the time which had elapsed since the occurrence 
of the events included in said complaint, it was not possible to con¬ 
duct as thorough an examination or to make as complete a reply as 
might have been desired. The following, however, is extracted 
from the report of the commissioner of immigration at San Fran¬ 
cisco, dated August 7, 1005, upon the complaint mentioned: 

Eleven cases were mentioned, the latest of which took place in July, 1902, 
or a year prior to my assuming charge of the administration of the Chinese- 
exclusion laws at this port. The data on file in the cases is more brief than it 
would be at the present time, and is as follows: 

1. Chu Kin How arrived at this port at 5 p. m. on August 11, 1900, ex S. S. 
Gaelic, and was landed on August 13, 1900; a Shanghai student, 24 years of 
age; landed to enter the University of California. 

2. Eh Sang Ching arrived at this port at 8 p. m. August 13, 1901, from Hono¬ 
lulu, ex S. S. City of Peking; landed August 15, 1901; was lauded as a person 
born in Hawaiian Islands, and consequently entitled to American citizenship; 
admitted for the purpose of taking a course in medicine at the University of 
Calfornia. 

3. Pin Lin Chan arrived at this port on the same vessel as No. 2 and was 
landed on the same date; landed because of being a native of Hawaiian Islands, 
and also for the purpose of taking a course in the University of California. 

4. Wee Kuie Ling, student, sent over by the Chinese Government; arrived at 
3.05 p. m. August 21, 1901, ex S. S. Gaelic, from Hongkong; landed the next day. 

5. Wong Chung Yu, a Shanghai student, arrived and landed the same as No. 4. 

6. Chen Chin Too, a Chinese Government student, arrived and landed the 
same as No. 4. 

7. Wang Chung Ilui, student from Yokohama, with Japanese Government 
certificate, arrived and landed the same as No. 4. 

8. Chong Yu Chaun, Chinese Government student, arrived and landed the 
same as No. 4. 

9. Hu Tung Choo, Shanghai Government student, arrived and landed the 
same as No. 4. 

10. Yen Chin Yung, a Chinese Government student, arrived and landed the 
same as No. 4. 

11. Shang Hung Hao, arrived 7 a. m. on July 31, 1902, ex S. S. Coptic; landed 
August 2, 1902, as a section 0 Shanghai teacher; was landed on the day that 
Professor Fryer appeared and gave his testimony. 

Considering the volume of business handled by this office at the time in ques¬ 
tion, it seems as though there was no very reasonable ground for criticism as to 
delay on the part of our officers in caring for these cases. Personally, I have 
no knowledge in the premises other than what the records show, as each and all 
took place while the administration of the Chinese-exclusion laws was in the 
hands of the collector of customs. 

(Bu. Im. file No. 12264 C.) 

CHARGES AGAINST INSPECTORS AT BUFFALO. 

In August, 1905, one Hamilton Ward, jr., an attorney at law, at 
Buffalo, N. Y., who has been extensively engaged in the “ Chinese 
practice ” at that port for a number of years, stated to the Depart- 


138 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


ment that three of its inspectors, Messrs. Anderson, Stevenson, and 
Baltz, had been guilty of smuggling a Chinaman into the United 
States and then arresting him, with a view to “ making a record ” for 
themselves. Although it was realized that Mr. Ward, by reason of 
his close connection with the Chinese interests in Buffalo, might have 
an ulterior purpose in making such statements, a special employee of 
the Bureau was detailed to Buffalo to conduct an investigation. Such 
investigation resulted in the disclosure that the three inspectors men¬ 
tioned had, evidently through an excess of zeal, and from a desire to 
defeat the purposes of a company of smugglers at Buffalo, brought 
four Chinamen across the Canadian boundary on the night of Janu¬ 
ary 10, 1904, and then arrested them on the charge of being unlaw¬ 
fully in the United States. It was quite clearly shown that the China¬ 
men were about to be smuggled into the United States by regular 
smugglers, and there was no reason for believing that the inspectors 
were actuated by any dishonest motives in conducting them into the 
United States, their object quite apparently being to anticipate the 
action of the smugglers, and bring about the discredit of such smug¬ 
glers in the eyes of the Chinese themselves. The three inspectors, 
however, were promptly dismissed from the Service, not solely be¬ 
cause of the error of judgment thus committed, but principally be¬ 
cause when the cases were called in court they had denied any partici¬ 
pation in the induction of the Chinamen into the United States. 
(Bu. Im. file No. 14138 C.) ' 

ALLEGED HARSHNESS OF INSPECTOR AT SPOKANE. 

On November 6, 1905, an attorney at law at Spokane, Wash., ad¬ 
dressed a letter to the President, in which he stated that the Chinese 
inspector stationed at that city acted in such a harsh and rigid man¬ 
ner toward the Chinese merchants residing there that they were all 
in fear and dread of him, and charged specifically that the said in¬ 
spector had arrested one Wong Chung, “ a wealthj^ Chinese mer¬ 
chant,” and had him “ imprisoned in the county jail, where he re¬ 
mained without trial from the first part of August, 1904, until the 
12th day of October, when he was acquitted and discharged, at a 
great expense to the Government.” These charges were thoroughly 
investigated, without the knowledge of the Chinese inspector at 
Spokane, and such investigation resulted in ascertaining that the said 
inspector was well regarded by all of the mercantile houses of Spo¬ 
kane, and that no merchant of that city had any criticism to offer 
with regard to him. It was also found that the inspector mentioned 
had found the Chinaman Wong Chung engaged in the performance 
of manual labor, and as he had no laborer’s certificate, had arrested 
him, and that his action in so doing was approved by the United 
States commissioner, who ordered the deportation of Wong Chung 
as a laborer unlawfully resident in the United States; that Wong 
Chung was confined in jail because he did not plect to give a bail bond 
between the date of his trial by the United States commissioner and 
the hearing of his appeal by the district court, and that when the said 
case was heard before the district court he managed to prove that he 
was a merchant, and was dismissed. It was still further developed 
that the preference of the charges had been actuated by a Chinese 
inspector formerly stationed in Spokane, but removed therefrom “ for 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


139 


the good of the Service,” who was anxious to return to that station, 
his home being located there; and upon this showing, taken in con¬ 
nection with the said Chinese inspector’s past record, he was dis¬ 
missed from the service. (Bu. Im. file No. 14464 C.) 

COMPLAINT or CHINESE STUDENTS IN BEHALF OF REV. KONG YIN TET. 

On January 7, 1906, a communication was received, by reference 
from the President, signed by 13 Chinese students at the University 
of California and by 3 in the Boone School, complaining in a general 
way of the harshness with which the Chinese-exclusion laws were 
being administered at the port of San Francisco, and citing the spe¬ 
cific case of Bev. Kong Yin Tet, a Chinese minister of the Episcopal 
Church in Honolulu, who returned to that territory by the S. S. 
Korea on December 30, 1905, alleging that in this particular case the 
watchmen stationed at the gangways to the steamship had annoyed 
and embarrassed Mr. Kong by requiring him to go first to one gang¬ 
plank and then to another several times before finally allowing him 
to board the vessel. These students were requested to appear at the 
immigration office in San Francisco and testify regarding the general 
charges and the specific one. The result was that it was discovered 
that only one of them had any personal knowledge of the specific 
instance, and that each and every one of them could not think of any 
other case in which action to which they could take exception had oc¬ 
curred, all of them agreeing that when they had themselves come to the 
United States they had received the utmost courtesy and consideration 
at the hands of the immigration officials. The record of the entire case, 
however, indicated that some trouble and annoj^ance had been occa¬ 
sioned Mr. Kong on December 30, that fact evidently being due to 
the absence from the pier at the particular time of his boarding the 
ship of any responsible immigration official; and instructions have 
been issued to the Commissioner of Immigration at San Francisco 
which, it is thought, will obviate a recurrence of the unfortunate inci¬ 
dent. (Bu. Im. file No. 14526 C.) 

INSPECTOR AT NEW ORLEANS. 

On January 15, 1906, a petition was indited by one Horn Kim, a 
Chinese merchant of New Orleans, in which the statement was made 
that the inspector in charge of New Orleans had, in reporting upon 
an application of one Horn Som for admission to the United States 
as a domiciled merchant, suppressed certain testimony given bearing 
upon the status of the said Chinaman and had written an adverse 
report upon the case without justification. Investigation showed that 
the suppression of testimony had resulted in this manner: 

The inspector in charge not being satisfied with the investigation 
as conducted by one of his subordinates detailed on the case, directed 
said subordinate not to write up a report from the shorthand tran¬ 
scripts of such investigation, and proceeded himself to examine the 
witnesses and to investigate the premises on which the store was 
located. In making his report to the inspector in charge at Portal, 
N. Dak., through which port Horn Som was seeking admission, the 
insiiector in charge at New Orleans did not include therein transcripts 
of the testimony given before the subordinate official, but furnished 


/ 


140 


ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


only transcripts of the testimony given before himself, and reported 
that the NeW^Orleans firm was largely engaged in gambling enter¬ 
prises, to the personal knowledge of the inspector in charge. This 
report resulted in holding the Chinaman Horn Som at Portal for a 
sufficient length of time to enable his aj^peal to reach the Department. 
The appeal was promptly sustained by the Department, by telegraph, 
as the record did not contain sufficient evidence to justify the belief 
that the New Orleans firm was actually or principally engaged in con¬ 
ducting a gambling saloon, rather than a “ fixed place of business for 
the buying and selling of merchandise.” While it was evident that 
the inspector in charge had not been actuated by dishonest motives 
in making his adverse report, he was severely reprimanded for the 
poor judgment displayed in substituting his own investigation for the 
first investigation, rather than making it supplemental thereto. (Bu. 
Im. file No. 14526 C.) 

INSPECTORS PUNISHED FOR IMPROPER CONDUCT. 

On January 31, 1906, the inspector in charge of the district of 
Washington advised the Bureau that several damage suits which had 
previously been instituted by certain Chinese residents of Seattle, 
against four of the inspectors stationed there, had resulted in the 
award of $300 each against Inspectors Edward L. Wells and Samuel 
H. Hamer, and of the exoneration of the other tAvo inspectors in¬ 
volved. It was quite clearly indicated that the alleged improper 
treatment of the Chinese had been very much exaggerated by the 
Chinese witnesses appearing before the jury, but it was also evident 
that Inspectors Wells and Hamer had not conducted themselves dis¬ 
creetly, especially the latter. The Bureau promptly recommended 
that the said inspectors be severely reprimanded, and that the salary 
of the last-named be reduced, and the first-named advised that a pro¬ 
motion which had been contemplated would not be granted in his 
case; which action was taken. (Bu. Im. file No. 13961 C.) 

DELAY FAULT OF CHAN GEE. 

On January 25, 1906, Mr. T. N. Tallentire, an attorney at law at 
Seattle, addressed a communication to the Department, complaining 
that one Chan Gee, who had arriA^ed at Sumas, Wash., on January 6, 
had been held at that station for an unreasonable length of time, 
pending a determination of his claimed mercantile status. Investi¬ 
gation showed that the delay was largely due to the Chinaman’s own 
fault. The following is quoted from the reply addressed on Febru¬ 
ary 13 to Mr. Tallentire: 

On the departure of Chan Gee from the United States in 1904, he filed certain 
papers relating to his mercantile status with the inspector in charge at Port 
ToAvnsend, Wash., by whom an investigation was made under the terms' of 
Rule 25, resulting in a determination of the prima facie right of Chan Gee 
to reenter the United States. In returing to the United States he came to the 
port of Sumas, Wash., without having given any notice in advance of his 
intention to seek reentry at a port different from the one of departure. Imme¬ 
diately after his arrival a telegram Avas sent the Port Townsend office, directing 
that the papers on file there be forwarded to Sumas, and on the evening of 
the following day, January 7, the said papers were received in the Sumas office. 
The next morning, before office hours, the officer in charge examined the appli- 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSIOFT LAWS. 


141 


cant and forwarded a transcript of the examination and the other papers to 
the Seattle office on the morning train of the same day. The receipt of such 
papers was acknowledged January 9, and on January 10 an inspector of the 
Seattle office was detailed to ascertain whether Chan Gee’s status as a merchant 
remained unchanged. Ascertaining that one of the witnesses had moved to 
Tacoma, it was necessary to forward the papers to the inspector located at 
that city, by whom such papers were returned in time to be received in the 
Seattle office January 13. The papers with the report were returned to the 
Sumas office January 15 (Sunday having intervened), and reached the Sumas 
office on the evening of January 16, at too late an hour for the applicant to 
benefit by any action which might have been taken that evening, there being 
no train on which he could have left Sumas. On the morning of January 17 
the case was passed upon favorably and the applicant landed, so that the 
applicant left Sumas for Seattle on the first avilable train after the receipt of 
his papers. 

The inspector in charge at Sumas assures the Bureau that in this case, as in 
all others requiring his attention, no pains were spared to reach a decision at 
as early a date as possible compatible with a proper observance of the require¬ 
ments of the law and the regulations drawn thereunder; and in the light of the 
main facts of his report, as above outlined, the Bureau does not hesitate to con¬ 
cur in the opinion that the case of Chan Gee was handled with all possible 
dispatch. 

(Bu. Im. file No. 14557 C.) 


AFTER FOUR YEARS. 

The following letter, dated Boston, February 15, 1906, illustrates 
how the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion laws appeals to some 
of the citizens of this country; 

My Dear Sib : If the inclosed clipping is correct, it seems to me this Chinaman 
should be pardoned and allowed to remain in this country. 

Kindly have this case looked into, for we do not want to deal unjustly with 
the Chinese, especially in these critical times for Americans who are located in 
their country. 

Most sincerely yours, Marcus C. Cook. 

To the President. 

[Newspaper article.] 

YEE MUST GO BACK—CHINAMAN’S CASE DECIDED AFTER FOUR YEARS. 

Judge Dodge, of the district court, to-day turned over to the United States 
marshal, to be deported, Yee Ten Wah, a well-known Jamaica Plain laundry- 
man. He is 40 years old, and twenty-five years ago came to this country. In 
.1898 he returned to China, but failed to make known his intentions to return, 
and so he was turned back when he attempted to do so later. He managed, 
however, to smuggle himself through, via British Columbia, but was appre¬ 
hended by United States officials four years ago, and arrested. His case has 
been pending since, and was finished to-day. He was placed in the cage, to 
await the sailing of the next steamship. 

Upon looking into this case it was discovered that Yee Ten Wah 
had applied for admission at Kichford, Vt., in July, 1900, as a 
revurning merchant, but had been found, upon investigation, to be a 
laundryman, and was therefore rejected. He subsequently smuggled 
himself into the United States, but was found in Jamaica Plain by 
a Chinese inspector, arrested, and upon being brought to trial Avas 
ordered deported, the United States commissioner finding that he had 
been a laborer in this country during the registration period, and 
had failed to register; that he had been a laborer during the year 
prior to his depailure Ihr China; that he had been smuggled into 
the Unitexi States, and tlmt his residence here was therefore unlaw ful. 


142 ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

The case was appealed, and continued from time to time until May 
12, 1905, when the district court ordered the defendant to prosecute 
his appeal, stating that if he failed to do so the appeal would be 
dismissed; and on June 12, 1905, the Chinaman appeared in court, 
waived his appeal and plead guilty; whereupon the district court 
affirmed the finding of the United States commissioner, and remanded 
the Chinaman to the United States marshal for deportation. 

(Bu. Im. file No. 1313T C.) 

ALLEGED BLACKMAIL BY HONGKONG OFFICIALS. 

During the spring and summer of 1905 rumors reached the Bureau 
to the effect that some one connected with the office of the consul- 
general at Hongkong, or else with the office of the Public Health 
and Marine-Hospital surgeon at that place, was extorting money 
from Chinese persons who intended to proceed to the United States, 
the pretext for such extortion being that such persons were afflicted 
with trachoma, and could not, therefore, be admitted to the United 
States under the immigration laws. Finally a notice was posted in 
Chinatown, San Francisco, which was secured and translated, and 
in which the charge was made that the person guilty of the black¬ 
mailing was an interpreter connected Avith the office of the consul- 
general, and that the extortions were perpetrated by such officer in 
conjunction “ Avith the American doctors.” Both the State Depart¬ 
ment and the Treasury Department conducted investigations, Avhich 
resulted in exonerating the interpreter, as well as the medical officers. 
The ground for this complaint Avas the fact that a firm of Chinese 
persons of Hongkong was levying blackmail upon their felloAV coun¬ 
trymen upon the pretext that by the payment of $50 the said firm 
Avould guarantee the entry of the Chinaman into the United States, 
despite the provisions of the immigration laws, especially as relating 
to the dangerous contagious disease trachoma. This is evidenced by 
a receipt which was obtained by the immigration officials at San 
Francisco from one of the Chinamen Avho had been imposed upon, a 
translation of which receipt reads as folloAvs: 

Received for the American doctor (or doctors) from Tai Lun the sum of $55 
(7.2 currency), said sum to be regarded as fee for examining the eyes and for 
lotion. Should the said Toy Ton not be allowed to go aboard or should be 
returned the said sum of $50 will be returned to the person who paid the 
amount, and this receipt will be recalled to be canceled. Of these facts this 
shall be proof. Kwong Sui 31st year, 3d month, 12th day. 

(Feb. 15, 1905.) 

Man On & Co. 

Per Loui Suey Sang. 

(Bu. Im. file No. 48587 1.) 

NA LAY, A CHINESE WOMAN. 

In November, 1905, a complaint was received through Hon. Thomas 
H. Carter of alleged unwarranted action upon the part of Inspector 
Howard D. Ebey, of Montana, in SAvearing out a warrant for the 
arrest of one Na Lay, the alleged Avife of a Cliinese laborer. A full 
report was called for, and the facts in the case are shown by a letter 
dated December 7, 1905, addressed by the Commissioner-General to 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


143 


the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and transmitted by the latter 
to Senator Carter: 

Referring to the case of Na Lay, in regard to whom there was submitted cor¬ 
respondence between Senator Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, and the Secretary 
to the President, I have the honor to submit the following report: 

During the summer of 1904 there applied for admission at the port of Port 
Townsend a Chinese person named Ham Hung Wah, who claimed the right to 
enter the United States upon the ground that he was a native-born son of one 
Tom Sing, and his wife, the above-mentioned Na Lay. The application of the 
said Ham Hung Wah, containing his testimony as to the circumstances of his 
birth in this country, was forwarded to Inspector Howard D. Ebey for investi¬ 
gation and report. Both Tom Sing and the said Na Lay were duly examined 
under oath by Inspector Ebey, with the result that both testified that the said 
Na Lay was born in China and lived there until immediately following her mar¬ 
riage with Tom Sing in K. S. 17 (1891). After her marriage she accompanied 
her husband, Tom Sing, to the village of Gut San, county of Bok Suey, district 
of Sun Ning, from which place she shortly afterwards came to the United States, 
landing at San Francisco, without papers of any kind, except that her husband, 
Tom Sing, produced what is known as an “ eagle certificate,” a paper issued by 
the collector of customs to departing laborers under the provisions of section 
4 of the Chinese exclusion act of July 5, 1884, to identify the person to whom 
issued as a lawful resident laborer and entitled upon his return to reentry. 

The said Na Lay testified further that she did not register, assigning as an 
excuse therefor that she had been told that she did not need a certificate, as her 
husband’s would serve for both. This certificate, of course, is the certificate of 
residence prescribed by the act of May 5, 1892, as amended by the act of No¬ 
vember 3, 1893. 

Upon this statement of facts made by both of the said Chinese persons. In¬ 
spector Ebey arrested the said Na Lay on August 22, 1904, at Bozeman, Mont, 
where she was tried nearly a year later—June 29, 1905—before Commissioner 
McPherson, who ordered her deportation upon the ground that she was in the 
United States unlawfully. From this order the said Na Lay appealed to the 
United States district court, where the said case is now pending. 

The question has arisen as to the propriety of the arrest of Na Lay, under the 
circumstances. I need not remind you that the acts of May 5, 1892, and Novem¬ 
ber 3, 1893, declare that any Chinese laborer found in the United States without 
a certificate of residence shall be deemed to be unlawfully within this country, 
and shall be ordered deported by the judge of any United States court before 
whom he is taken, unless he shall prove that his failure to secure the certificate 
prescribed was due to “ accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause.” The 
inspection officers, moreover, are aware of the fact that annually an appropria¬ 
tion is made by Congress “ to prevent unlawful entry of Chinese into the United 
States, by the appointment of suitable officers to enforce the laws in relation 
thereto, and for expenses of returning to China all persons found to be unlaw¬ 
fully in the United States * * *.” Inspector Ebey, therefore, believing that 

he was appointed for the purpose of making the expulsion feature of the Chi¬ 
nese exclusion laws as effective as the exclusion feature thereof, naturally 
considered the evidence above set forth, together with the rulings of the De¬ 
partment in corresponding cases and the decisions of the courts. In view of the 
decision in the case of Ah Moy, United States circuit court, district of Cali¬ 
fornia, to the effect that ‘‘ the wife of a Chinese laborer is not entitled to enter 
the United States on her husband’s certificate since the passage of the act of 
1884, but must furnish the certificate required by section 6 of the act,” he was 
convinced that, even admitting the relationship claimed, the said Na Lay had 
entered the United States in violation of law. It was held in the same case 
that a Chinese woman who marries a laborer, regardless of her prior status, 
thereby becomes herself a laborer. He then questioned Na Lay to discover 
whether she might not have acquired a quasi legal status, notwithstanding the 
mode of her entry, by obtaining a certificate of registration, as she was a resi¬ 
dent, acording to her testimony, of this country during the entire time in which 
such certificates were issued. This, however, as above stated, she did not have, 
and in addition to which she was confronted with the det'ision of the TTnited 
States district court for the eastern district of Missouri, in the case of the United 
States V. Yong Yew, in which it was held that ” it is as much a violation of the 
Chinese exclusion acts for a laborer who by any trick or evasion secures ran 

. // t'l fciiufe'joq Daudi 


144 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW&. 


entry to our ports to remain in the United States as it would have been to 
originally Innd on our shores.” Under these circumstaiiees, from the point of 
view of the Bureau, had Inspector Ehey failed to arrest Na Uay he would have 
been derelict in the performance of the duties for which he was appointed, and 
properly subject to discipline. 

There is still another reason which induced the said inspector to believe 
that it was incumbent on him, imperatively so, to arrest the said Na Lay, a 
reason which would doubtless have induced him to arrest Tom Sing as well, 
but that the latter had secured a certificate of residence after his alleged entry 
in 1891, upon an “eagle paper.” This reason is found in the act of October 1, 
1888 (25 Stat. L., p. 504), which act was in full force and operation from the 
date of its passage until repealed by the convention between the United States 
and China, dated December 8, 1894. Section 1 of the said act declares that no 
Chinese laborer who had theretofore been in the United States, or who being 
then in the United States should thereafter depart, should be allowed to return 
to or remain in the United States. Section 2 of the said act declares “ that 
no certificate of identity provided for in the fourth and fifth sections of the 
act of which this is a supplement (act of May G, 1882) shall hereafter be 
issued, and every certificate heretofore issued in pursuance thereof is hereby 
declared void and of no effect, and the Chinese laborer claiming admission 
by virtue thereof shall not be permitted to enter the United States.” Although 
Tom Sing, under the legislation just quoted, was also in the United States 
in violation of law the inspector did not arrest him, since he had conformed to 
the requirements of subsequent acts and had secured a certificate of residence, 
which on its face had entitled him to remain here. In the case of Na Lay, 
however, no such condition existed. She had never conformed to any law, but 
on the contrary had entered in defiance of law and had maintained a residence 
here in disregard of the requirements of the acts of 1892 and LSb.S, as a result 
of which the commissioner before whom she was taken for a hearing found it 
necessary to order her deportation, thereby approving judicially the action of 
Inspector Ebey in arresting the said Na Lay. 

I have read with some surprise the letter of the 2d instant from Senator 
Carter to Mr. Loeb, in which he apparently reads into the Chinese exclusion 
legislation a proviso that arrests may not be made by administrative officers if 
the result of such arrest may operate as an effectual divorce of husband and 


wife, and his characterization of the interpretation placed upon the laws by 
the courts, and in accordance with the plain literal i)ur])ort of their language 
as harsh and rigid “ and regardless of conflict with the laws of God or anv other 
law of the land.” 

There are few laws upon the statute books the administration of which does 
not result in greater or less suffering to innocent people. This is notably so in 
our criminal laws. An execution for a capital offense in the case of a man 
having a wife and children not only divorces the married partners forever, but 
orphans the children as well, leaving besides the bj-and of disgrace upon those 
who are in no wise responsible for the offense, yet in no instance has it been 
urged seriously, except in appeals to the jury for a mitigation of the sentence 
that the literal terms of such acts should not be administered because of such 
unfortunate results. I am thankful that in the present case subsequent develop¬ 
ments have shown that the said Na Lay is herself to blame for the predicament 
in which she now is. Not only did she defy the Chinese exclusion laws in her 
own case, but by perjury she endeavored to violate it in the case of another 
whom she claimed as her son by a man whom she had never met at the time of 
the birth of such son. She is, therefore, an evil doer, both in the light of civil 
and moral law, and yet has been overtaken by no retribution other than her 
probable return to the country of her birth. 

I have endeavored in the foregoing to make it plain that the action of Insnec- 
tor Ebey, which has been the subject of criticism bv Senator Carter was not 
due to any departmental policy devised “to imbue aii inspector with that*harsh 
and inhuman view of the law,” but the apiflication of the plain language of the 
statute to the case presented to him, and that it was strictlv in accord with the 
judicial constructions of the Chinese exclusion acts rendered from time to time 
by the courts. I am unable to see, therefore, what other course Inspector Ebev 
could have pursued under the circumstances, nor am I able to subscribe to the 
view that administrative officers charged with a specific duty have discretionarv 
powers to omit or neglect to do what the law plainly requires, because the‘re 
suit of a failure to so omit or neglect would bring hardship and suffering unon 
those persons to whom the law extends. ^ 


mrORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


145 


On March IT, 1906, the following letter and inclosure were received 
from the inspector in charge of the Montana district: 

I beg to call your attention to Bureau letter No. 14390 C, of November 6, 
1905, in regard fo the case of the Chinese woman Na Lay, alias IMrs. Tom Sing, 
at that time on appeal to the United States district court from the decision of 
United States Commissioner McPherson, of Bozeman, Mont., and to inclose for 
your inforrhation a copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, dated 
March 12, 1906, by United States District Judge William H. Hunt, in which the 
appeal in question is dismissed and the defendant held for deportation. 

In view of the importance of this case I have requested Judge Hunt to file 
a written opinion, which he has agreed to do, and a copy of same will be 
furnished the Bureau, 

While it is to be regretted that the necessity arose for the apprehension of 
this woman, it is gratifying to know that our officers have been upheld by the 
higher court; and in consideration of the circumstances surrounding this case, 
the questions involved, the criticisms to which our service has been subjected, 
and the long and hard fight made by the attorneys for the defendant, it appears 
to me that Inspector Howard D. Ebey, who made the arrest, is deserving of the 
commendation of the Bureau, and that Assistant United States Attorney J. 
Miller Smith, who represented the Government, is entitled to the thanks of the 
Bureau. 

In the district court of the United States, district of Montana. 

1 HE United States^of America, plaintiff, ) bindings of fact and conclusions of 
Na Lay, defendant. ) 


FINDINGS OF FACT. 

This cause having been called regularly for trial before the court, J. Miller 
Smith, esq., deputy United States district attorney, appearing as attorney for 
the plaintiff, and Messrs. Edwin S. Booth and J. U. Sanders appearing as attor¬ 
neys for the defendant. And the court having heard the proofs of the respec¬ 
tive parties and considered the same, and the arguments of the respective 
attorneys thereon, and the cause having been submitted to the court for its 
decision, the court now finds the following facts: 

1. That the defendant, Na Lay, is a Chinese person (woman) of the age of 
33 years, and that defendant was born in the Empire of China. 

2. That the defendant came to the United States about the year Kwong Sui 
17 (1891). 

3. That the defendant is and always has been a member of the laboring 
class, and never has been a member of the exempt class. 

4. That the defendant was found within the jurisdiction of the United States 
without a certificate of registration and had never secured a certificate of 
registration. 

5. That the failure on the part of the defendant to produce such certificate 
was not caused by any accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause. 

6. That the defendant lived at the Presbyterian Chinese Mission Home, at 
San Francisco, Cal., from March, 1891, until September, 1892; that then she 
went to San Jose, Cal., and worked for a Mrs. Edwards for about three months; 
that thereupon defendant returned to said Chinese Mission Home, at San Fran¬ 
cisco, and stayed there and in Oakland, Cal., from time to time until she was 
married to a Chinaman in the year 1895, when she moved to Portland. Oreg., 
where she lived for a short period and left her husband and traveled from place 
to place until she was arrested at Bozeman, Mont. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

As conclusions of law from the foregoing facts, the court finds: 

1. That the defendant was not lawfully within the United States during the 

registration period. . ^ • ..v 

2. That the defendant was not entitled to register during the registration 

period and is not now entitled to a certificate of registration. 

3. That the defendant is unlawfully within the United States and is in the 

H. Doc. 847, 59-1-IQ 




146 


ENFOECEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


United States in violation of the exclusion act of May 6, 1882, as amended by 
the act of July 5, 1884. 

4. That the defendant should be deported from the United States to China, 
whence she came. 

And judgment is hereby ordered to be entered accordingly. 

Dated this 12th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

William H. Hunt, Judge. 

ALICE SOON, A GIRL STUDENT. 

On July 2, 1904, a telegram was received from the commissioner 
of immigration at San Francisco, reading: 

Chinese girl from Shanghai presents section 6 certificate issued by Portuguese 
Consul-General Oscar George Potier to her as Portuguese citizen, properly 
viseed by American consul-general. Case bona fide; but has Portuguese official 
right to issue section 6 certificate? 

Said telegram was immediately repeated to the State Department, 
with request that information be obtained from the Portuguese min¬ 
ister as to whether the Portuguese consul-general at Shanghai, China, 
was authorized by his Government to issue certificates to Portuguese 
citizens of the Chinese race under the provisions of section 6 of the 
act approved July 5, 1884, no response having up to that time been 
received by the Department of Commerce and Labor, so far as the 
Kingdom of Portugal was concerned, to a general request for infor¬ 
mation from all foreign governments which it had preferred through 
the State Department on the 12th of January preceding. 

On July 9 the Department received a telegram from the Depart¬ 
ment of State, repeating a dispatch received from the president of 
the Wesleyan College, of Macon, Ga., requesting advices as to what 
steps should be taken to insure the landing of Miss Soon; to which 
telegram this Department replied by calling attention to its former 
message and to the acknowledgment thereof by the State Department 
showing that the Portuguese minister had been called upon for the 
desired information. 

No reply reaching this Department, on July 19 it again telegraphed 
the Department of State, requesting that, in view of the urgency of 
the case, the Portuguese minister be hurried, if possible, in furnishing 
a response, and on the same day a letter was received from the De¬ 
partment of State, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from the Portuguese 
minister, indicating that the Portuguese consul-general at Shanghai 
had been authorized by his Government to issue the certificates re¬ 
quired by section 6, above mentioned, and a telegram was immediately 
sent to the commissioner of immigration at San Francisco ordering 
the landing of Miss Soon. 

Although there is no direct statement to that effect in the files of 
the Bureau, it seems likely that the delay in obtaining advices from 
the Portuguese minister was due to the fact that that official was, in 
July, 1904, located at St. Louis, Mo., in attendance upon the World’s 
Fair. It would not, of course, have been regular or legal for the 
Bureau to instruct the commissioner at San Francisco to land the 
applicant until it had come into possession of some definite official 
statement that the Portuguese consul-general at Shanghai was author¬ 
ized to issue to Chinese subjects of Portugal the certificate which is 
made by law the only evidence admissible to establish the right of a 
Chinese person to enter this country. 


CHAPTEK XL 
THE BOYCOTT. 


Character of statements made in this and preceding chapters. Why 
the boycott is considered last. First published intimation of intention 
to boycott. Proclamation of minister regarding preparation of claims. 
Precaution adopted by Bureau of Immigration. Attitude of Chinese of¬ 
ficials and newspapers. Assistance rendered by Chinese in this country. 
Object of boycott. Treatment of students and merchants, and general 
complaints. 

It would be an easy matter, indeed, to draw up an argument, based 
partly on known facts and partly on the natural inferences from 
such facts—to put 2 and 2 together and say the sum is 4—to state 
facts concerning the policy of exclusion as it has grown up and 
developed in this country, and add to them other facts as to the’ele¬ 
ments opposed to exclusion and continually trying to break down and 
destroy what has been accomplished toward making that policy a 
reality, and to say, convincingly, beyond any possibilityof refutation, 
that the result is the boycott. But argument is not the purpose of 
this paper, and it has been the constant effort in preparing it to elimi¬ 
nate all such matter and to make of it a simple statement of facts—■ 
facts that can be proved by the production of letters, statistical 
tables, and other records, leaving those who may be patient enough to 
peruse it to draw their own conclusions. 

This subject of the boycott has been left thus to the last chapter, 
because it is believed that it belongs at the end, not only in the chron¬ 
ological sense, but in logical sequence of events. 

All that has been included in the preceding chapters should be 
regarded as a part of this final division of the paper. It remains 
only to give a few incidents and illustrations, to refer to a few' addi¬ 
tional letters and records, which do not naturally fit into the preced¬ 
ing chapters, but which are necessary to a rounding out and complet¬ 
ing of the general subject. 

WONG KAI KAH FORETOLD BOYCOTT. 

So far as the Immigration Service is advised, the first printed 
public intimation that the Chinese would make use of the boycott as 
a means of retaliation for the exclusion laws of this country 
(although it is understood that some intimations of a like character 
were previously used, in making speeches, by some prominent Chinese 
officials in this country), w^as contained in the article by Wong Kai 
Kah, in the North American Review for March, 1904, already alluded 
to at some length in the chapter on the Regulations (p. 23). Mr. 
Wong expressed himself in the following language—language which 
at the time of the appearance of the article was veiled enough, but 
upon which subsequent events have shed a wonderful light: 


147 




148 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


In no other country is the power of boycott as strong as it is in China. Every 
trade, business, profession, has its guild or association, whose laws are almost 
paramount to the laws of the country; and often merchants accomplish the 
repeal of an obnoxious law or tax, or the removal of an unjust official by closing 
their places of business and letting them remain closed until the remedy asked 
for is granted. (N. A. Rev., 178, Jan.-June, 1904, p. 424.) 

BOYCOTT PROCLAIMED IN SAN FRANCISCO. 

About the time when the agitation which culminated in the boycott 
began—i. e., early in May, 1905—there came into the possession of 
the Bureau of Immigration a translation of an interesting proclama¬ 
tion, published and distributed in Chinatown, San Francisco. It 
reads as follows: 

PROCLAMATION 

Of Sir Liang Chen Tung, Chinese Minister to the United States, Spain, Peru, 

Cuba, and Mexico, issued through Consul-General Chung, at San Francisco, 

Cal. 

[Translated by J. Endicott Gardner, Inspector and Interpreter, San Francisco, Cal.] 

I, Chung, acting Consul-General for California, hereby make known by proc¬ 
lamation a communication received this day from Liang, our Imperial minister 
to the United States, Spain, Peru, Cuba, and Mexico, in which the minister 
states as follows: 

The Chinese exclusion act is increasingly severe over and above what it was 
originally. The oppression, indignity, and general disquietude resulting there¬ 
from are being daily aggravated. Last year, upon the expiration of the supple¬ 
mentary treaty, I, the minister, requested our foreign office to give notice con¬ 
cerning the denunciation of the said treaty, and to communicate the same to 
the State Department of the United States, which is now a matter of record. 
Our Government, however, for the sake of international comity and because of 
the labor unions in the United States clamoring for power to the detriment of 
good government in the said United States, consented to tolerate the negotiating 
of a new treaty sanctioning the continued exclusion of Chinese laborer^ provid¬ 
ing only that all Chinese of other callings be uniformly exempted and courte¬ 
ously treated. To this end a draft of the proposed treaty was transmitted to the 
State Department for the approval of or modification by the Government of the 
United States, with no decision whatever after the lapse of many months. The 
former treaty expired K. S. 30th year, 11th month, 2d day, or, according to 
American reckoning, December 8, 1904, from which day all matters pertaining 
to the immigration of Chinese into the United States, or their residence therein, 
should not be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the expired treaty, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that the Congress of the United States had decided that 
the exclusion of Chinese should be continued after the expiration of the treaty, 
since one nation has no right to forcibly require another nation to comply with 
supplemented legislation affecting it, but to which it has not consented. As the 
matter now stands it is uncertain as to whether or not there will be agreement 
on the various provisions of the treaty. That being the case, should our people 
be hindered in the mean time, as they come and go, or be injured in any way, 
they would be legally entitled to indemnity, which the United States should 
recognize in order to be fair and to preserve the rights of man. 

Lest the Chinese in the United States should not be thoroughly acquainted 
with the manner of making out claims, or that they might include items that 
should be open to objection, two special blank forms for indemnity have been 
prepared, one for Chinese immigrants who should have been hindered or denied 
landing, and one for Chinese who should be arrested or deported for not regis¬ 
tering, copies of which forms will be transmitted to the various consul-generals 
to be delivered to the officers of the Six Companies within their jurisdiction, in 
order that whenever Chinese, whether merchants, laborers, or members of any 
other class, should be delayed after their arrival here, or be denied landing, or 
should be arrested as the result of a search for certificates, they might set forth 
their claims according to the specially prepared forms, using every diligence to 
set forth facts that cannot be gainsaid and avoiding every ambiguity. When 


ENFORCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 149 

\ 

duly filled out the statements should be handed to the nearest consul for trans¬ 
mittal to the legation, where they will be reexamined by your minister, and 
when found to be without mistakes will in due time be summed up for presen¬ 
tation to the State Department for settlement in acknowledgment of what is 
right. Though the United States should be dilatory in its dealings with foreign 
nations, so that early compliance with our desires could hardly be possible, the 
steps indicated are proper under international law. Furthermore, as your min¬ 
ister, I can not longer bear to see our people unjustly suffering iniquities and 
indignities visited continually upon them, as people who cry but cry in vain. 
Hence, it is my desire that our consuls shall forthwith undertake this matter as 
indicated above, not regarding this document as something ordinary, but giving 
the matter attention until satisfactorily accomplished. In pursuance of this, 
let a general proclamation be immediately issued in addition to notifying the 
officers of the Six Companies, in order that all Chinese may be clearly advised on 
the subject, so that hereafter whenever any of our merchants, laborers, or mem¬ 
bers of any other class shall be delayed in landing or returning to China, 
or shall be arrested or returned to China because accused of not having been 
registered, they may fill out their claims according to the forms provided 
and present them to the consul for transmittal to the legation for investi¬ 
gation, in order to ascertain that they contain statements which cannot be 
gainsaid, and that the language used is entirely free from ambiguity. 

The forms referred to are as follows: 

* * * * • 0 0 

(Bu. Im. No. 12264 C.) 


STEPS TAKEN BY BUREAU. 

As soon as it became known that the Chinese were planning a gen¬ 
eral attack upon its administration of the Chinese-exclusion laws, 
the Bureau, in order to make assurance doubly sure, issued to each 
Chinese inspector in charge in the United States a letter of caution, 
of which the following is a copy: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Immigration, 
Washington, May 19, 1905, 

No.* 13998 C.] 

important. 


Chinese Inspector in Charge, 


Sir: You are hereby directed to issue to each officer under your jurisdiction 
charged with the enforcement of the provisions of the law relating to the exclu¬ 
sion or arrest and deportation of Chinese persons specific, imperative instructions 
that in the performance of their duties every possible endeavor shall be exercised 
to prevent the incurrence of any just cause for complaint concerning the treat¬ 
ment accorded Chinese in either word or deed. When suspicion is entertained 
as to the lawfulness of the residence in this country of any Chinese person 
every proper and reasonable opportunity should be afforded him to satisfy the 
officer by whom suspected before placing such person under arrest, and when¬ 
ever it becomes necessary to make investigations concerning, or to call for the 
credentials or proofs of status of, a Chinese person'alleging membership in 
the exempt class, every consideration compatible with the acquiring of the 
necessary data or information should be accorded such person, whether within 
the country or seeking admission thereto. 

To state my desire in a few words, it is: That the administration of the law 
shall, just as far as a proper enforcement of its terms and existing circum¬ 
stances will permit, be stripped of all harshness of word or action. 

This matter should have immediate attention, and a statement of the action 
taken thereon should be forwarded to the Bureau without delay. 


Respectfully, 


F. P. Sargent, 
Commissionei'-Qeneial. 


(Bu. Im. No. 13998 C.) 




150 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS, 


PROCLAMATION OF CHINESE FOREIGN OFFICE. 

Tlie following letter is interesting, as it indicates clearly the atti¬ 
tude of the influential Chinese officials and newspapers in this country 
toward the boycott, how closely the Chinese of the United States are 
associated with their countrymen at home, and how deeply Chinese 
officials, both in China and in the United States, were interested in 
the propaganda for its continuance “ to the bitter end.” 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Immigration Service, 

Office of the Commissioner, 

• San Francisco, Cal., July 11, 1905. 

Commissioner of Immigration 

(Through Chinese Inspector in Charge, San Francisco), 

San Francisco, Cal. 

Sir; In confirmation of my oral report previously made to you, I have the 
honor to report in writing that, making my business to observe whatever may 
appear from time to time on the bulletin boards in Chinatown or in the Chinese 
newspapers published in this city in any way pertinent to the subject of the 
Chinese exclusion or to our service in general, I saw yesterday an exceedingly 
important official proclamation, issued by the Chinese consul-general stationed 
in this city, pursuant to cabled instructions from the foreign office in China in 
relation to the matter of the present Chinese boycott on American goods, the 
importance of which lies in the fact that it gives officially the true situation as 
it exists at present, inasmuch as it is given by the Chinese foreign office, which 
represents the Chinese Government in China, to the Chinese consul-general in 
San Francisco, who represents China in this district, and through him to the 
Chinese people in California, where the majority of the Chinese in Amerca 
are. The information becomes doubly important in view of the Associated 
Press dispatch which I saw in the daily papers of San Francisco on the 15th 
instant, reading; “ Mr. Rockhill, the American minister at Peking, has cabled 
the State Department that the (Chinese Government is vigorously opposing the 
threatened boycott of American goods.” On almost the same day cabled instruc¬ 
tions are sent from the Chinese foreign office to the Chinese consul-general in 
this city—which were, of course, not intended for the eyes of any white men— 
squarely contradicting the assurances reported in the press dispatch to have 
been given to Mr. Rockhill. 

It is personally most gratifying to me that we at San Francisco are in a posi¬ 
tion to secure the true inwardness of the present Chinese situation as it is in 
Peking, as well as on this side of the Pacific. 

The following is my translation of the proclamation referred to and of the 
comments appearing thereon in the Tai Tung Yat r>o. otherwise called “ The 
Chinese Free Press,” of the 14th instant. The Chinese Free Press is one of four 
Chinese daily papers published in San Francisco. The proclamation was first 
on the bulletin boards in Chinatown and afterwards published in the paper 
mentioned: 

“ I, Chung, consul-general, stationed at San Francisco, issue this proclama¬ 
tion to make clear the following matter; 

“A proclamation cabled by our foreign office has just been received, reading 
as follows: ‘ The Chinese exclusion act of the United States is what Chinese 
merchants at all ports 'desire to retaliate against by means of a commercial 
boycott on American goods. The said boycott this department has never at 
any time prohibited or obstructed. Just at this time, when negotiations are 
being carried on with the American minister with the hope of removing the 
more oppressive laws, a public petition is received from certain Chinese in 
California, making the misstatement that our department has prohibited our 
merchants from boycotting American goods, and, furthermore, making the 
threat in the words, “A strong man will be employed to kill you,” which is 
indeed wildly disloyal. We trust that you will issue a proclamation Immedi¬ 
ately, setting forth the facts of the situation clearly to the sojourning Chinese, 
to the end that they may not be influenced by idle rumors and thus be made to 
misunderstand us.’ 

“ In pursuance of this I issue this proclamation, conveying the words of the 
cablegram for the information of all Chinese. We, of the Chinese Empire, 


ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


151 


ou^ht all to recognize the fact that His Excellency Hwang, of our foreign office, 
has at heart the interest of our people sojourning abroad; that he has shown 
this interest for several years in the matter of the exclusion act, and at this 
very moment he is carrying on negotiations with the view of removing the 
more oppressive laws and he has never at any time prohibited the boycott on 
American goods. All this he has done for the only pur])ose of affording protec¬ 
tion to the hundred thousand odd of our Chinese people sojourning beyond the 
seas. Now comes along certain ignorant person or persons with a petition sent 
to the foreign office, containing on the surface elegant phrases, but as a matter 
of fact wildly disloyal language, relying upon the fact of his or their isolated 
residence beyond the seas, but forgetting the fact that they still have families 
in China. 

“ In view of the above this proclamation is issued for the information of all 
Chinese, in order that they may be fully acquainted with the beneficent inten¬ 
tions of our foreign office and that they may not misunderstand the situation 
through listening to idle rumors, whereby they may be seriously involved. 

“ K. S. 31st year, Gth month, 11th day.” (July 13, 1905.) 

[Seal of consulate.] 

[Translation of extract from Tai Tung Yat Bo, otherwise known as the “ Chinese Free 
Press,” of the 14th instant, in relation to the above proclamation,] 

The oppressive features of the exclusion act of the United States all Chinese 
of any enthusiasm at all can not but vigorously oppose and with might and 
main seek to retaliate against. At this writing all officials in China are of one 
mind in encouraging and aiding merchants in the matter of retaliation. We 
see also by its calilegram that the foreign office is not now hindering and never 
has hindered merchants in their boycott on American goods. Hence, it is clear 
not only that our officials are not stopping or hindering the boycott, but, on the 
contrary, are helping it on. From this it is also apparent that the report in 
the American papers of a few days ago, to the effect that Governor Yuan has 
issued a proclamation against the boycott is without proper foundation. 

Were it a fact that the governor had become fearful as to himself or that he 
tried to hinder others, he should wake up, be penitent, and set himself right. 
It is not shown who sent the anonymous petition, but whoever it was he could 
only be a mischief-maker. 

I have the honor to inclose herewith the extract from the paper referred to, 
together with the heading of the paper and the extract referring to the 
representations reported therein to have been made to Minister Rockhill. 

The Chinese in California, quoting one of their own editorials, say, “ The 
Chinese Government has no more power to prevent its merchants from refusing 
to l)uy goods from American dealers than the American Government has to 
oppose its own merchants’ preference to deal with traders elsewhere than in 
China. It is a matter of business entirely, involving the individuals only, and 
the Government has no concern in it;” that their Government can encourage 
the boycott, but not prevent it 

Respectfully, Jno. Endicott Gaedneb, 

XJ. S. Chinese Inspector and Interpreter. 

(Bu. Im., No. 12264 C.) 

Even before the preparation of his last annual report the Commis¬ 
sioner-General had become convinced, first by persistent rumors and 
later by oral reports, that the boycott, if not chiefly engineered, was 
at least actively encouraged, by the so-called Chinese; mercantile 
interests of this country (whose chief source of revenue is the cooly 
trade), as wdll be seen by reference to the second paragraph of page 
80 of said report. Those persistent rumors and reports were later 
fully confirmed by the receipt from the commissioner of immigration 
at San Francisco of translations made by the chief interpreter of 
statements of recei])ts and expenditures of the “ General Society at 
San Francisco for the Opposing of the Exclusion Treaty.” Said 
translations follow: 


152 ENFOKCEMENT OP CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 

Monthly statement of account of the General Society at San Francisco for the 

Opposing of the (Exclusion) Treaty. 

[Translated by John Endicott Gardner, acting Chinese inspector in charge, San Francisco-] 

From the 5tli mouth, 18th day (June 20), to the 6th month, 17th day 
(July 19) : Total received from this and the various cities in the 
form of contributions_$5, 328. 50 

Besides cash received from the Consolidated Benevolent Society at 

Portland, Oregon_ 203. 50 

Cash received on the 7th day of the 5th month (June 9) as subscrip¬ 
tions taken up by the Chinese Merchants’ Exchange and the Chi¬ 
nese Board of Trade_ 815. 00 


The above three items of subscriptions total_ 6, 347. 00 

The disbursements are as follows: 

5th month, 4th day (June 6) : 

For cablegram to the Wah On Association of Kongkong— $47. 30 

For telegraphing to the minister (Washington)_ 15.40 

Reply from minister_ 20. 55 

Paid publishers of the Chung Sai newspaper for cabling 

to Tientsin for the even distribution of funds_ 7.15 

For foreign envelopes_ 4. 25 

5th month, 18th day (June 20) : 

For cabling to Tientsin_ 34. 10 

For cabling to Shanghai_ 33. 00 

Red ink for stamping pad_ . 50 

Stamping pad_ . 50 

For the making of a seal_ 1. 50 

5th month, 21st day (June 23) : 

For writing desk_ 12. 50 

For letter cabinet_ 12. 50 

For post-office box_,_ 1. 75 

For reimbursing the Tai Tung newspaper people for en¬ 
graving stamp_ 4. 95 

5th month, 22d day (June 24) : 

For framing of rules_ 1. 40 

For bamboo frame_ 1. 25 

For cable to Yuan (a very high officer in China)_ 90. 20 

5th month, 24th day (June 26) : For transmitting subscrip¬ 
tions of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association 

at Victoria, British Columbia_ 1.50 

5th month, 20th day (June 28) : 

For cabling to Shanghai_ 52. 80 

Cable to Hongkong- 52.80 

For cable to member, or members, of the foreign office_ 44. 00 

5th month, 27th day (June 29) ; 

For foreign envelopes- 1. 60 

For rubber stamp_ 1.00 

5th month, 30th day (July 2) : Paid to publishers of the Mun 

Hing paper for printing--^_153. 75 

0th month, 2nd day (July 4) : Paid to the publishers of the 

Tai Tung newspaper_ 34. 00 

dth month, 9th day (July 11) : For two boxes Japanese ink__ .50 
6th month, 10th day (July 12) ; 

Paid to the publishers of the Tai Tung newspaper for 

printing - 60.25 

For transmitting answer from Foon Yue Town_ . 50 

6th month, 11th day (July 13) : 

Paid to Sun Kam Wah for account books and sundries_ 19. 20 

For stamps- 33. 00 

6th month, 13th day (July 15) : Paid to the publishers of the 

Wah Kee newspaper for printing_ 74. 00 

6th month, 14th day (July 16) : 

Paid telephone company_ 3. 60 

Paid for use of telephone of Chinese Consolidated Benevo¬ 
lent Association_ 1 . 50 




































ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


158 


6th month, 15th clay (July 17) : 

For transmitting subscriptions from Grant_ $0. 50 

For stamps _ . 5 q 

6th month, IGth day (July 18) : 

Cash transmitted to the Kwong Shew office at Shanghai 

($2,000 at 48 cents)_ 960.00 

Cash transmitted to the AVah On Company at Hongkong 

($1,000 at 0.45875)_ 458.75 

Cash transmitted to Quong Tsai Hospital of Canton 

Province ($2,000 at 0.45875)_917.50 

6th month, 17th day (July 19) : 

For large foreign envelopes' and wrappers_ 1. 65 

Paid to publishers of Chung Sai news])aper_ 83. 55 

6th month, 17th day (July 19) : 

Paid to Lee Kwun for the work of sending out notices 

during the 5th month_ 20. 00 

Paid the same person for services during the 6th month._ 20. 00 

Paid to Chew Tsow of the Chinese Consolidated Benevo¬ 
lent Association for services rendered the 5th month_ 7. 00 

Paid to Chew Tsow for services during the 6th month_ 7. 00 

- $3, 299. 25 


Balance on hand_ 3. 047. 30 


Dated Kwong Sui 31st year, 6th month, 17th day (July 19. 1905). 

Submitted by the General Association for the Opposing of the (Exclusion) 
Treaty. 

(Printed by the Chung Sai daily newspaper.) 

(Bu. Im. No. 12264 C.) 

Monthly statement of account of the General Society at San Francisco for the 

opposing of the ''New Exclusion Treaty." 

[Translated by Jno. Endicott Gardner, acting Chinese inspector in charge, San Francisco.] 

From the 6th month, 18th day (July 20), to the 7th month, 17th day 
(August 17) : Total amount in cash subscribed and received from 


this and other towns during this month_$9, 611. 75 

Disbursements during 6th month are as follows: 

18th day (July 20) : Paid for transmittal of subscription 

from Gillespie_ $0. 50 

21st day (July 23) : Paid for transmittal of subscriptions 

from various towns_ . 50 

22d day (July 24) : 

Paid to Kwan Tsap Hing for writing a petition (or pe¬ 
titions; note by translator)_ 5.00 

Paid to Sun Kam Wah for paper, pens, tobacco_ 1. 25 

Stamps for letters to Shanghai and Hongkong_ . 50 

24th day (July 26) : 

Paid for transmittal of subscription for Chehalis- . 25 

Paid publisher for the Shung Sai newspaper for print¬ 
ing monthly statements_ 10. 00 

25th day (July 27) : Paid for transmittal of subscription 

from Oxnard_ . 15 

27th day (July 29) : Paid for transmittal of subscriptions 
from various towns- . 40 


Disbursements made during the 7th month were as fol¬ 


lows: 

1st day (August 1) : 

Paid for transportation of lecturer of “ Nai Won,” 

Canada, to different ijlaces for the purpose of exhort¬ 
ing people to subscribe- 7. 75 

Postage on transmittal_ .85 

2nd day (August 2) : 

Paid for transmitting subscriptions received froiu Santa 

Cruz- *^5 

Paid for transmitting subscriptions received from Park 
City _ • 15 



























154 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


3rd day (August 3) : 


Telegraphed to Shanghai Merchants’ Exchange $3,000 

(at 0.4825)_$1,447.50 

Paid for telegraphing the above amount--— 16. 50 

4th day (August 4) : Paid for transmitting subscriptions 

from Rocksprings_ • '<’5 

6th day (August 6) : Paid for transmitting subscriptions 

from various towns_ • 60 

9th day (August 9) : 

Paid for stamps_ 12. 50 

Paid to telephone company_ 3. 05 

Paid to Sun Kam Wah for tobacco_ . 90 

Paid for cablegram to Shanghai_ 16. 50 

11th day (August 11) : Paid for transmitting subscriptions 

from various towns_i__ 1.10 

12th day (August 12) : Paid for transmitting subscriptions 

from Sonora_ . 50 

13th day (August 13) : Paid for transmitting subscriptions 

from various towns_ . 65 

15th day (August 15) : 

Paid for transmitting subscriptions from various towns. . 50 

Paid for cablegram to Shanghai_ 136. 40 

17th day (August 17) : 

Paid for one bottle of red ink for stamping_ . 25 

Paid to Yu Bo Hong for writing during the 7th 

month _ 30. 00 

Paid to publisher of Tai Tung newspaper toward ex¬ 
penses incurred in writing editorials in English for 

1 month_ 96. 00 

Paid to Lee Kwun, compensation for the 7th month_ 20. 00 

Paid to Chew Tsow, compensation for the 7th month_ 10. 00 


Total amount paid out this month_$1, 821. 15 


Total amount cash received this month_,_9, 611. 75 

Total amount paid out this month_1, 821.15 


Balance- 7, 790. 60 

Balance brought forward_ 3, 047. 30 


Grand total of balance on hand_ 10, 837. 90 

Dated Kwong Sui 31st year, 7th month (August, 1905). 


Issued by the General Society at San Francisco for the opposing of the “ New 
Exclusion Treaty.” 

(Printed at the office of the Tai Tung newspaper.) 

(Bu. Im., No. 12264 G.) 

ORIGIN OF THE BOYCOTT. 

On November 3, 1905, the Bureau of Immigration was visited by a 
gentleman who has lived for years in China and who was then fresh 
from that country on a visit to the United States, and who had been 
situated in China so as to gain much information of an authentic 
character. 

In the course of the conversation on the subject of the boycott, that 
gentleman (whose name can not now with propriety be given), stated 
to the Commissioner-General that, in his opinion, which opinion 
was based upon general information obtained by him in various ways 
at Canton, the boycott propaganda was engineered by an association 
of parties in China working in cooperation with a similar association 
of parties in the United States; that the idea and the preliminary 
steps undoubtedly originated in this country, quite possibly with some 
of the higher officials of the Chinese Government itself; that his 
belief is that the ruling officials of the Chinese Government in China 
really have no interest in the emigration of coolies to this country. 




























ENFOKCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 155 

although this is more a matter of personal impression than otherwise, 
it being impossible to gather any very definite information on the 
subject; that the measures resorted to by the association in China 
were reckless in the extreme, it apparently not being realized that the 
boycott was a dangerous weapon of the two-edged sword character; 
that all sorts of extravagant, misleading, and absolutely false asser¬ 
tions were prepared in circular and poster form, more or less pro¬ 
fusely illustrated, and distributed broadcast among the poor and igno¬ 
rant classes of the populace, thus inciting them to hatred of Americans, 
and incidentally leading to considerable disorder; that he believed 
that the recent murder of five missionaries in the Kwang Tung 
Province is directly due to this incitement; and that if the propa¬ 
ganda were continued for a sufficient length of time without drastic 
measures being taken by the Chinese Government, it would perhaps 
result in a second Boxer movement of a modified form; that one or 
two of the Chinese viceroys, realizing this, took prompt measures to 
stop the publication, distribution, and posting of the inflammatory 
material, but others had not the good judgment to do so. He showed 
a copy of a poster of a most insulting and abusive character, issued 
and distributed in Canton at the time of the visit of the party accom¬ 
panying Secretary Taft to that city, which circular or poster he 
stated was promptly suppressed and a fitting apology made by the 
viceroy, upon strenuous representations from the United States con¬ 
sul-general. He said further that the opening up of the northern ter¬ 
ritory, including Manchuria, by the cessation of hostilities between 
Japan and Russia, had resulted in a practical discontinuance of the 
boycott, for a ready market was found in Manchuria and adjacent 
territory for the sale of American goods, which were being held up 
in Shanghai and other places; that, in fact, the boycott was never 
very effective in the northern part of the Empire, but American trade 
was injured to a considerable extent by its operations in the southern 
portion. He showed also tAvo communications of a circular style, 
written by one Tsung, a large general merchant who, he said, had 
previously been a close friend to America, but became quite active in 
encouraging and fostering the boycott in its various ramifications, 
adding that these were interesting as showing the earnestness with 
which the scheme was advocated, but at the same time indicating that 
the Chinese dealers themselves were perhaps the greatest sufferers 
from the boycott. (Bu. Im. No. 14158 C.) 

From a letter received in the Bureau of Immigration on February 
15, 1906, from Kang Yu Wei, the leader of the “ Chinese Reform 
Movement,” the following significant passage is extracted: 

Two decades’ rigid enforcement of the exclusion laws has brought about the 
ill will of 400 million people. The exclusion of Chinese labor on the one side 
is now met by the boycott of American products on the other. (Bu. Im. No. 
122G4 C.) 

DIPLOMAT SOUL OF MOVEMENT. 

As confirmatory of this same view, the following letter is pertinent, 
and, in the light of the events and circumstances hereinbefore recited, 
seems to “ ring true; ” 

Oriental Palace Hotel, 

Yokohama, January 2S, 1906. 

Hon. P. Sargent, 

Commissioner of Immigration, Washington. 

Dear Sir : You may perhaps remember me in connection with Chinese emi¬ 
grants to Yucatan, Mexico, via San Francisco, some three years ago. Mean- 


156 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 


while I have traveled over many Chinese provinces to study the problem of 
sending Chinese country-labor “ families ” to Yucatan, in order to have the 
children become permanent settlers. I have now abandoned the project, as 
the Chinese clans and officials will not allow “ families ” to emigrate, for 
obvious reasons. 

What may interest you is this; During the last 18 months I have assisted 
at numerous gatherings in Chinese villages and towns of Kwansi, Kwantung, 
Fookien, Shansi, Shantung provinces, and have witnessed the preparation of the 
boycott of American goods. One of the chief reasons for this boycott was to 
obtain a change of the exclusion law, so that large numbers of coolies could 
be introduced into the United States under “ false pretenses,” and thus benefit 
the emigration societies, consisting of brokers in Canton and other places, to 
whom every coolie in the United States pays yearly a certain amount for 
“ protection ” while he is in America and when he returns to China. 

A former Chinese minister in Washington, whose name I do not care to 
mention, is the soul of this movement, at least thus it was pointed out in the 
numerous meetings which I attended in the interior of China. 

Of course, your consuls know little of these things, as they never travel in 
China, and their interpreters can but be unreliable. I just send you these lines 
for what they are worth; but my conviction, based on careful observation on 
the spot, is that if the ” exclusion law ” be amended, your country will either 
be overrun by myriads of “ coolies,” under all kinds of disguises, or your Gov¬ 
ernment will constantly be bothered with law cases, when “ doctors.” “ mer¬ 
chants,” or other professional men will have been arrested by your agent as 
“ coolies,” which in reality they are. 

Yours, faithfully, J. P. Meyebs. 

(Bu. Im. No. 12264 C.) 

CHARACTER OF BOYCOTTER8. 

The boycott, according to the contention of all parties concerned 
therein, was organized and carried on bv the students and merchants 
of China because of “ harsh treatment” accorded those classes, espe¬ 
cially the former, by the officers of this Government. On this point 
it is not necessary to do more than refer to the figures and accom¬ 
panying comments, appearing under the two headings “ Merchants ” 
and “Students” in the chaj^ter on “The Exempts” (pp. 55, 57, 
respectively), and further to call attention to the fact that in the 
section of China from which most of the students come to this 
country (i. e., northern China), the boycott has amounted to noth¬ 
ing, while in the section from which hail practically all the laborers 
now in the United States, and who are constantly endeavoring to 
obtain admission by smuggling or other fraudulent means, the boy¬ 
cott has been actively and effectively operated. It is from the Can¬ 
ton (or Kwong Tung) Province, also, that the most of the so-called 
mercantile class of this country come—the class which (as shown 
at p. 60) is so largely interested in the importation of coolies. 
And, finally, attention is directed to the statements made in the 
preceding chapter on “Complaints” (p. 125), where each specific 
instance of alleged harsh treatment is discussed in detail. It is an 
easy matter, of course, for any person or class of persons to make 
the general charge that harsh measures have been enforced in an 
inexcusable manner. To such a general charge it is only possible to 
enter a general denial. If specific instances are given, the opportu¬ 
nity will be welcomed by the Government to investigate, and in every 
instance in which the complaint is not shown to be unjustified by 
the facts (as the majority of those already given have been, and it is 
confidently believed the most, if not all, that can now by any. means 
be brought forward will be) a punishment appropriate to the offense 
will be immediately accorded to the guilty parties. 


ENFORCEMENT OF CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAWS. 157 

In the light of the contents of this paper, and of the various items 
of information of an apparently authentic character which have 
appeared in the public press since the issuance of the last annual 
report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, there does not 
seem to be any good or sufficient reason for modifying in any degree, 
unless in the direction of making the statement more emphatic, the 
following comment appearing on page 81 of said report: 

In concluding- these prefatory remarks, the Bureau expresses the firm con¬ 
viction that whatever the original source of the present agitation against the 
enforcement of the exclusion laws may be, the purpose in view will not be con 
tent with any modification of present modes of administration, however exten¬ 
sive. An influence sufficiently potent, by using the boycott against a great 
nation, to secure the relaxation of regulations which have been enforced for 
years, which are believed to be just and necessary, and which have successfully 
passed ordeals before the judicial branch of the Government, will have secured 
assurance that it may likewise influence the legislation of the nation and will 
be emboldened to demand all it wants—the emasculation, if not repeal, of the 
exclusion policy. 

(See, also. Senate Eeport No. 776 (part 2), Fifty-seventh Con¬ 
gress, first session, pp. 106-115.) 


*•' fV^viL M •-' ^ r' h 






tv '^ui 



ri'*:’^rW2/nh':V y^li V.,l';\'; .•«'»•:•:/ “t, ’!:» 

i*;-, t -Ofi j . h • ' ■-"■'■'■■ - '"■ .-■ ■•■■-—— ' '* > >* ^ 3fii; 


JU^^yv^ - Ti;t.V».,'^.; r*; • I .'Hi.? ,M • ' I ' .'-'*‘''V»r’ ?l*»l i ' !‘ ■ |. -t’ll Of ..^ ‘ 

^ '; r^^;ir. (. i'v,' -tH .wjJ m'V- 

. 'Kt'' . ••'TU^/^firt,:^' joojjf? gj .,. ,;;,,■'^l,^^■l^i» iXii oi 

^ ■;;? tyo^i .1- ',; ■;■• ■*• ^ ^ '.,!/^-i'' 

^HH ■ fTro^/u;iij.'u'■ >i^iS.. 

*•■ "■ , .’ ••; . ' ?v/l,‘ V i ;. '‘'>(£ 1 . ,*'•' ' i 

•; .i,:^,;r, t,X) ';(!^ :•';^ ^ 

-.'■ •.it -..•;t.’^'!i'-i. \ . ''vy ?*f/' '.ij-i ,' •• . itff; 


f.f; • 'V4r^. -.' ■ ^ 

'?^. * *-;•> ■ li:'- 'i i- ‘J> • ''’,7^. .‘(ff'.‘ 

^ •-•'■; t> ! •''■ ..! i .i.’.t'tiijl, «v.'« 

'’■ -<<•,•: .('in* Jjk*'.'-vj 

^'''' 'h .Mi; ;'>0. 

i '/V >■ 

':* 'V .4L;:’ 



' • ... > 

■' ■ . lit,.'' . 'l 


f 


* .»*3 

i ’.,' 


‘i.?:1 




II '-It ; . -;. >' 

/;••■;. tu ; »n; I'l i * < j' 

• ., ’v t. -'1 .’t/.'--:. -( v., . ;* 

, V.t i:,'.: f'b. 








,. ■ , ,-, 


•-■v' I'-- 


■P' i4 

• .ivi 




■V'W.' 

; 


’W '■ 

^ *X..^ :v 

, ' ' ' ** . ' ''*’»• 




,V*-^ -r^ 


• - ■ .'■ ijf;' '- ' ' 


< ■■ ' ’Vk 

' -■ '■■ ^ 


■:/ 

)»' . 


»' 

I; 


1 ■ •• 



■ / . .,,. , 
‘■■V I'f ;’j ' 


v':® 




i ^ 

% 






•#. <• . 


. V- 


o -'4'1 





• ■ 




■ 



.i , ' 


. A* . .*'. ‘•^ V ,. 

• ' .^’ . - ‘f/* 



• ■ ■ EP' ^ I 









H>.‘'ir-'i;.'-y iir-, 

- .. I • 


I* 1 ■> ’ ” 



•j 1’ 


4 ^ . 



\. 

; ■/ 


tiM 


. }*. '■ 


ft. ••. 

I , 

.1 

'4 


. .» , 


?■ 4 


•ii P.^. i -V ;<t 


Vi'":? 



ft. ' 

■ f 


■*' ■*.*» 


(..V-, A. 






I ,. 


' *? 

' ij 







• ...v 


*H v '^ .’ it- '•■ . 

;i- 

j ^ •jfn-u • ' 







INDEX 


Page. 


Administration of exclusion laws_ 20 

Administrative decisions, validity of- 09 
Admitted, Chinese, in 1904, 1905, 

and January, 1906_ 22 

Affirmative proof, courts demand- 17 

Ah Ying, case of the slave girl_ 114 

Aliens, Chinese excluded as com¬ 
pared with other_ S 

Angel Island, detention station on— 1<) 

Appeals, conditions of_ 29 

Department’s method of dealing 

with _ 29 

disposition of, in 1904 and 

1905 _ 30 

rule prescribing_ 27 

Applicant, burden of proof rests on_ 28 

Arrangement of report- 6 

Arrest, laborers placed under, and 

deported_ 76 

See also Courts, and Complaints. 
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail¬ 
way, arrangement with- 14 

Atlanta Exposition, Chinese at- 38 

Atlantic coast and Porto Rico, con¬ 
ditions of_ 15 

Bakersfield, smuggling at-15 

Berkshire, report of Inspector- 123 

Bertillon record, act authorizing and 

rule requiring_ 31 

method of applying- 32 

reasons for adopting- 31 

Birth, alleged place of, given by 

“ natives ” _ 124 

statistics of- 122 

Blackmail, Boston arrest stopped- 128 

Hongkong officials charged with 142 
New York inspector charged 

with _ 133 

Pittsburg inspector charged 

with - 134 

See also Complaints. 

Boston, delay in deportation case at.. 141 

general arrest in- 128 

King brothers and sister in- 134 

little Chinese immigration 

through_ 15 

Boycott, a chapter on the- 147 

character of men behind the- 156 

funds for prosecuting the- 152 

letter of J. P. Meyers on the- 155 

origin of the- 154 


steps taken by Bureau in view 

of the- 149 

Wong Kai Kah foretold the- 147 

Buffalo, charges against inspectors 

at - 137 

preventing smuggling at- 12 

Bunner, purposed frauds hy one- 53 

Burden of proof, applicant assumes- 28 
Business firms, large membership of 

Chinese _ 60 

nonmercantile_ 63 

Butte, alleged merchant domiciled 

in _ 64 

mercantile status of firm in- 63 

California, natives allege birth in- 12^4 

University of, complaints of- 134, 137 
University of, complaint of stu¬ 
dents of- 139 


Page. 


Canada, head tax on Chinese enter- 

ing - 12 

Canadian border, conditions on the- 11 
fraudulent entries by way of 

the -93, 95 

report of Inspector Cowley on 

conditions along_ 103 

smuggling over the_ 12 

subterfuges for smuggling Chi¬ 
nese over_ 102 

Canadian Pacific Railway, delivery 

agreement with_12, 95 

difficulty of accomplishing pur¬ 
pose of agreement with_ 98 

Carter, Hon. T. H., complaint of_ 142 

Census, attempted, of domiciled Chi¬ 
nese _ 77 

Certificates, act authorizing section 6_ 51 

consular officers issue fraudu¬ 
lent _ 43 

domiciled laborers_ 72 

domiciled merchants, fraudu¬ 
lent _ 19 

laborers must produce registra¬ 
tion _ 44 

officials to retain_ 28 

use of fraudulent section 6_ 9 

See also Section 6 certificates. 

Chan Chaw Ho, case of slave girl_ 115 

Chan Gee, delay in case of_ 140 

Chapter I. Introduction_ 5 

II. Conditions in general_ 7 

III. Regulations_ 23 

IV. The exempt classes_ 51 

V. Domiciled merchants_ 60 

VI. Wives and minor children_ 67 

VII. Laborers_ 71 

VIII. Transits _79-90 

IX. Natives_ 91 

X. Complaints _ 125 

XI. The boycott_ 147 

Charges of persecution_ 44 

See also Complaints. 

Chart, character of coaching_ 9 

Cheang Kwan Yin, the case of_ 67 

Chen Chin Tao, case of Jflfteen stu¬ 
dents and- 130 

Children of domiciled merchants, ad¬ 
mission of_67-70 

Chow Tszchi, alleged discourtesy to_ 129 
Citizenship, annoyance of Chinese 
resident in China claiming 

United States- 118 

Department ruling in regard to 

evidence required to establish- 119 

false claims to- 92 

See also Natives. 

Coaching, methods of_9, 100 

Commissioners, attitude of United 

States- 17 

certificates issued by United 

States_ 19 

See also Courts. 

Companies, large membership of bus¬ 
iness - 60 

nonmercantile_ 63 

Compilation of laws and regulations- 23 
Complaints— 


alleged discourtesy to diplomatic 

officer_ 129 

article by Wong Kai Kah- 130 


159 












































































160 


INDEX 


Page. 


Complaints-—Continued. 

blackmail, charges of, Hong¬ 
kong _ 142 

New York_ 132 

Philadelphia - 133 

Pittsburg_ 134 

Boston, general arrest at-,— 128 

King brothers and sister- 134 

Carter, complaint of lion. T. H_ 142 

charges against officials at Buf¬ 
falo _ 137 

Hongkong_ 142 

New Orleans_ 139 

New York_ 132 

Philadelphia _ 133 

Pittsburg_ 134 

Seattle_ 140 

Spokane_ 138 

Charlie Leung_ 136 

Chen Chin Tao and fifteen stu¬ 
dents _ 131 

delay in case of Alice Soon_ 146 

Yee Ten Wah_ 141 

Kentwell case_ 130 

King brothers and sister in Bos¬ 
ton _ 134 

Miss Miner’s protest- 108 

Pong Bow deported to Canada— 131 

protest for Rev. Kong Yin Tet— 139 

San Francisco students_ 137 

spirit actuating- 126 

Consuls, abuse of vise by- 53 

investigation by_ 56 

Coolies, certification of, as mer¬ 
chants _ 52 

trade of domiciled merchants in_ 61 

See also Laborers. 

Cortelyou, Geo. B., letter to George 

A. Loud from_ 45 

Cost of administering exclusion laws_ 8 

Courts, alleged natives in the_ 123 

Cowley, C. O’C., report of Inspector_ 103 

Crews, landing of Chinese- 11 

status of domiciled laborer in 

ships _ 78 

Criticism, Chinese official’s- 44 

Cuba, conditions in- 15 

Curiosity, “ exempt classes ” includes 

travelers for_25, 51 

Daughters of domiciled merchants, 

admission of-68, 69 

Decisions, validity of administra¬ 
tive _ 99 

Department of State, memorandum 

to, regarding passports_ 109 

Deportation, arrest and, of laborers- 76 

cost of- 8 

substitution on- 20 

Detention station, need of new_ 10 

Pacific Mail_ 9 

Detroit, preventing smuggling at_ 12 

Difficulties encountered in enforce¬ 
ment of laws_ 5, 7 

Dillard, forged duplicate certificates 

issued by one___ 74 

Diplomatic officer, alleged discour¬ 
tesy to_ 129 

Disease, exclusion because of_ 134 

Domiciled laborers. See Laborers. 

Domiciled merchants, a chapter on_ 60-67 

attempted census of_ 77 

fraud in use of certificates of_ 19 

New England cases of alleged _ 66 

number of alleged, admitted 

and re.iected in 1904 and 1905 66 

one firm composed of many_ 60 

prostitutes imported by_ 62 

trade in coolies by_61, 62, 63 

wives and minor children of_ 67 

Draper, complaint of Hon. W. H_ 136 

El Paso, difficulty of enforcing law 

at - 17 

smuggling at- 13 

See also Mexican border, 


Page. 

Enforcement of exclusion laws- 20 

Entries, laws defeated by fraudulent _ 9 

Evidence, citizenship requires cer¬ 
tain _ 119 

system of relying on Chinese — 94 

Examination, physical, use of Bertil- 

lon record in- 31 

See also Hearings. 

Exclusion, fraudulent devices to pre¬ 
vent - 9 

Exempt classes, a chapter on the-51-67 

defining the_25, 51 

number of alleged natives com¬ 
pared with- 122 

Expenses of trial, secret source of 

money to pay_ 8 

Expositions, rules for Chinese- 36 

Expulsion, difficulties met in work of_ 16 

Fake firms not uncommon_ 64 

Firms, nonmercantile- 63 

Fok Yung Yo, decision in case of- 35 

Freight cars, smuggling in- 14 

Gambling establishment, mercantile 

establishment may not include- 33 

Gardner, J. Endicott, report of, on 

Canadian border situation- 95 

translations by_ 148 

Grimes, statement of Joseph- 117 

Gulf ports and Cuba, conditions of- 15 

Hamer, case against Inspector_ 140 

Head tax, Canada imposes heavy- 12 

Hearings, conduct of, by immigra¬ 
tion officers_ 101 

rule prescribing character of_ 27 

Helena, Mont., mercantile status of 

firm in_ 63 

Highbinders, arrest of Boston_ 128 

Horn Kim, complaint of_ 139 

Hongkong, alleged blackmail by offi¬ 
cials stationed in_ 142 

House of Representatives, letter to_ 3 

Hum Wing, appeal in case of_ 19 

Interior, conditions in the_ 16 

duties of inspectors stationed 

In _ 16 

Investigation, difficulties met in con¬ 
ducting an- 16 

Jacksonviile, smuggling through_ 16 

.Till Fuey Moy, complaint of_ 133 

Juarez, smuggling via- 13 

Jun Quoon, case of alleged student _ 58 

Jurisdiction, enforcement of immi¬ 
gration laws under divided_ 5 

Ju Toy, decision in case of_13, 99 

Kalispell, Mont., mercantile status of 

firm in- 63 

Kang Yu Wei. letter of- 155 

Kentwell, L. K., case of- 130 

King brothers and sister, case of_ 134 

Kong Yin Tet, complaint in behalf 

of_ 139 

I.aborers, a chapter on Chinese_71-78 

arrest and deportation of_ 76 

attempted census of_77 

certificates issued to- 72 

counterfeit_ 73 

duplicate -_ 74 

pawning- 75 

sale of_ 72 

Chinese after admission may 

not become- 44 

definition of term_ 26 

difficulty of executing laws ex¬ 
cluding_ 71 

domiciled _25, 71 

lawful departure and return of_ 75 

minor sons become_ 68 

surreptitious departure and re¬ 


turn of— ^ 75 































































































INDEX 


161 


Paere. 

Lacalle, smug{?ling through_ 103 

liam Chee, smuggling by merchant- 62 
Laundry, mercantile establishment 

may not include_ 33 

Laws, Chinese exclusion_ 5, 23 

method of enforcing_ 20 

liCe M’ah, case of slave girls with_ 116 

Leung, case of Charlie_ 136 

I.ew I’oy Dew, decision in case of_ 10 

Liang Chen Tung, proclamation of 

Sir_ 148 

Liang Tu. trachoma case of_ 134 

Lo Chung Kwang, case of the stu¬ 
dent_ 58 

Loo Guie Ho, alleged daughter_ 68 

I.ott, John L., report of_ 100 

Loud, George A., letter to_ 44 

Louisiana Purchase Exposition, arti¬ 
cle bj" Chinese vice-commis¬ 
sioner to the_ 44 

Chinese at the_38, 30 

Lower California, smuggling Chinese 

from_ 11 

Lung Sing Company, status of_ 63 


McGettrick, certificates issued by 

one_ 10 

Malone, conditions at_ 11 

hearings in habeas corpus pro¬ 
ceedings at_ 100 

“ Mercantile establishment,’' defini¬ 
tion of _ 32 

Merchants, coolies certified as_ 52 

definition of term_ 32 

laborers for Louisiana Purchase 

Exposition certified as_ 57 

laborers posing as_ 55 

See also Domiciled merchants. 

Methods of applying exclusion laws. 20 
Mexican border, cases of alleged na¬ 
tives along the_ 107 

girl slave trade of_ 116 

smuggling along the- 13 

Meyers, .1. P., letter of_ 155 

IMiner, protest by Miss- 127 

Minor sons, danger from ruling 

in re_ 70 

laborers pose as_ 68 

Missionary interests, complaints by_ 126 
IVlontana, smuggling from Canada 

into _12, 63 

Mowry, Lyman, statement of_ 84 

Na Lay, deportation case of_ 142 

Natives, a chapter on Chinese, of 


administrative decisions in case 

of _ 09, 247 

alleged wives of_ 110 

attitude of courts toward 

alleged _ 123 

bad system of breaking down 

evidence of alleged- 94 

Canadian border frauds in cases 

of alleged_03-107 

character of- 122 

claims to citizenship by alleged- 92 
coaching witnesses in cases of 

alleged - 100 

difficulty of disproving claims of 

alleged _ 92 

issuance of passports to alleged 108 
Mexican border cases of alleged 107 
number of alleged, admitted and 

rejected - 119 

number of alleged, applying for 

admission _ 122 

prostitutes pose as- 111 

residents of China who claim to 

be Ignited States- US 

statistics of- 121 

steps to prevent frauds by 

alleged- 97 

Supreme Court decision on right 

of _ 91 


H. Doc. 847, 59-1-11 


Page. 


Neptune, smugglers on the schooner 11 
New Orleans, charges against in¬ 
spector at_ 130 

few Chinese seek eritrance at_ 15 

New York, conditions in the State of 12 

New York City, little Chinese immi¬ 
gration through_ 15 

North American Review, article by 

Wong Kai Kah in_ 44 

North Dakota, conditions in_ 11 

Number of Chinese admitted in 1904, 

1905, and January, 1906_ 22 

Obstacles to enforcement of laws_ 5, 7 

Omaha Exposition, Chinese at the_ 38 

Oregon, conditions in_ 11 

Pacific Mail dock, detention shed on 0 

Parks, complaint of Rev. Leighton_ 132 

I’assports, issuance of, to alleged 

natives_ 108 

I’ersecution. charges of official_ 44 

I’hiladelphia, blackmail charges 

.against inspector in_ 133 

I’ittsburg, charges against inspector 

at _ 134 

Policy of Bureau in enforcing laws 20, 125 

I’ong Bow, deportation of_ 131 

Portal, conditions at_ 11 

Portland, Greg., conditions at_ 11 

Porto Rico, conditions in_ * 15 

Port Townsend, conditions at_ 11 

Proclamations, boycott_148, 150 

Proof, applicant assumes burden of_ 28 

courts demand affirmative_ 17 

Prostitutes, importation of_ 43. 62, 110 - 


Providence, cases of Chinamen claim¬ 
ing to be domiciled merchants of_ 66 
Puget Sound, conditions along_ 11 

Q,uan Yick Nam, testimony of, in 

smuggling case- 62 

Quong Wo Lung Company, mercan¬ 
tile, status of_ 63 

Record, rule requiring Bertillon- 31 

Regulations, criticism of_ 25 

origin, evolution, and compila¬ 
tion of_ 23 


See also Rules, 

Rejected, Chinese, in 1904, 1905, and 

.January, 1006 - 22 

Restaurant, mercantile establish¬ 
ment may not include- 33 

Richford, conditions at- 11 

Rouses Point, smuggling through- 103 

Rule 1, exempt classes defined_ 25 

6, examination, hearing, and ap¬ 
peal - 21 

7, burden of proof on applicant- 28 

12, certificates to l)e retained 

by officials-— 28 

13, notice of appeal- 29 

14, evidence required on appeal- 29 

23, Bertillon record required- 31 

29, term “ merchant ” defined_ 32 

30, mercantile esta1)lisliment_ 32 

36, term “ student ” defined- 33 

30, persons in transit- 33 

41, Chinese attending exposi¬ 
tions - 36 

52, certificate of registration re¬ 
quired from every laiiorer- 44 

53, Chinese who l)ecome labor¬ 
ers after their admission_ 44 

Rules, adoption of, for enforcement 

of laws- 23 

“ Safe,” districts regax'ded as, for 

Chinese- 18 

St. Albans, McGettrick certificates 

issued at- 19 

St. Louis, blackmail charges against 

interpreter in- 133 

St. Louis Exposition, Chinese at- 39 

























































































162 


INDEX 


Page. 


San Diego, smuggling Chinese into_ 11 

Sun Francisco, boycott proclaimed 

in_^_ 148 

case of eleven students of _ 137 

detention station in_ 9, 10 

fraudulent entries at_ 9 

girl-slave trade in_ 111 

natives claim birth in_ 124 

transit abuses through port of_ 80 

San .Jose, smuggling at_ 14 

Sault Ste. Marie, preventing smug¬ 
gling at- 12 

Scope and arrangement of report_ 6 

Seamen, ambiguous conditions regard¬ 
ing Chinese_ 78 

Seattle, case of inspectors at_ 140 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 

letter to George A. Loud from the_ 45 

Secretary of State, passports issued 

under direction of_ 109 

Section 6 certificates, abuses under_52-59 

alleged natives compared with 

applicants presenting_ 122 

authority for granting- 51 

special officials should vis6_ 52 

Sex, statistics of_ 121 

Ships, landing of Chinese crews from_ 11 

Ships’ crews, status of domiciled la¬ 
borer in_ 78 

Siet, She, case of_ 68 

Sing Tuck, decision in case of_13-99 

Slaves. See Prostitutes. 

Smuggling, methods of, Chinese_ 11, 

12, 13. 14. 62, 102 

Sons of domiciled merchants, admis¬ 
sion of_68-70 

Soon, delay in landing Alice_ 146 

Southern Pacific Railway, arrange¬ 
ment with_ 14 

smuggling by employees of_ 14 

Speaker of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, letter to _ 3 

Spokane, charges against inspector 

at_ 138 

State. See Department of State. 

Statistics— 

alleged, compared with section 6 

applicants- 122 

alleged domiciled merchants ad¬ 
mitted and rejected in 1904 
and 1905 _ 66 


arrest and deportation of labor¬ 
ers _ 76 

birth _ 121 

Chinese admitted in 1904, 1905, 

and .January, 1906_ 22 

Chinese excluded as compared 

with other aliens_ 8 

cost of administering laws_ 

disposition of appeals_ 30 

natives, admission and rejec¬ 
tion of alleged_ 119 

niTinber of laborers arrested_ 76 

place of birth of “ natives ”_ 124 

sex_ 121 

statement of funds for the boy¬ 
cott _ 152 

Students, admission of_ 57 

case of eleven San Francisco_ 137 

Chen Chin Tao and fifteen_ 130 

definition of term_ 33 

delay in landing Alice Soon_ 146 

exclusion of, on account of dis¬ 
ease _ 134 


Page. 


Students, “ exempt classes ” include- 25 

Ivong Yin Tet, complaint by- 139 

Miss Miner’s protest in re- 127 

Substituting for Chinese ordered de¬ 
ported _ ^0 

Sumas, conditions at_ 11 

Supreme Court, decision of, in re 

native Chinese- 91 

decision of, regarding transit 

regulations- 35 


Tampa, few Chinese seek entrance 

at_ 15 

Teachers, “ exempt classes ” in¬ 
cludes_ 25 

exclusion laws not violated by 

pretended _ 58 

Tom Hong, expenses paid in case of_ 8 

Tourists, “exempt classes’’ includes- 25 

Trachoma, alleged blackmail for 

passing cases of_ 142 

exclusion because of_ 134 

Transits, a chapter on_79-9u 

cases of .July 25, 1901_ SO 

decisions on regulations for_ 35 

frauds committed by_ 79, 81-83, 90 

method of checking abuses by - 79 

number of, since .June 8, 1900- 89 

reasons for strict rules regard¬ 
ing _ 80 

rules governing_ 33 

Transmittal, letter of_ 3 

Travelers, few Chinese pose as_ 58 

rules governing transit of_ 33 

Treasury Department, transfer of 

enforcement of laws from the_ 3 

Treaty, “ exempt classes ’’ defined 

by- 51 

United States commissioners, atti¬ 
tude of_ 17 

certificates issued by_ 19 

See also Courts. 

Vermont, conditions in_ 12 

See also Canadian border. 

Ward, charges by Hamilton_ 137 

Washington, conditions in_ 11 

See also Canadian border. 

Wells, case against Inspector_ 140 

Wells, hearings before Referee_ 100 

West Indies, no restriction on im¬ 
migration into the_ 15 

White Spur, smuggling at_ 15 

Witnesses, coaching_ 100 

See also Coaching, and Evidence. 

Wives, causes for suspicion in cases 

of - 110 

Wives of domiciled merchants, ad¬ 
mission of_67,69 

Wo Hong Hoo, caseof the slave girl_ 115 
Wong Hong Low Company, status of_ 63 
Wong Kai Kah, article by_ 44, 130, 147 


Yee Ten Wah, delay in case of_ 141 

Yee Wing, alleged minor son_ 09 

Yick Sang Lung Kce, status of the 

firm of _ 6,5 

Yuma, Ariz,, smuggling at_ ]4 













































































g-,-. 

sai.- ^ , 









r 


Nf 
.• • p 

•y 




All.*'. * •C 

. • . ,’ V.’.*.;■» A 


Be/ 



i'-’-,. - i-H, 

»"J[-.*-*, V.'. . *<»'] 

r ^ • ■ >>. •)«, 

'■'v.T' ■ ” . •••Sr?,. 

. . ", » :Arf.<.v- %.>•♦.-' 






br,r IT I' wn n r <’ > 

-'w "' *,»wrsr.- * 


_,/’'W* v:. 

V‘r -^-^ 







v4 


“I • -*■ • ■ 'W;- * .1 

' ‘V * '%' ■ 


♦ .*<' • • 







& 


■ t 

V, 





'z • ■-■ ^ rjr^>*3 


T ^ '• 


iT« 




jfr- 




■/.- ,,• %-T 


V;, Hii -;. :; 


’ ‘I 

t ' 

- •■ ■ »v5^ ■■’^ -'■ ■ •' • 'r^- Jr ''P®*" 

»,.i« ' '■-->> ■ , \r 

" ' f ‘ 

* *s . I ~ ^ 


,'JSi. .:>-;4*.^ , . . .BHi - 


^ V T/'' 



•- A 


ac,- .1 ,v .wt‘/2 , . 




> . t jif ■.'' , 




■•:■ • . 



i» 










‘.'W *. . .■? ., . 'J •■ 

•r. V* 


.a'^« ■ -k. - 


t ■<■ 


<*. 




B" 

x*k 












■ - .■ ! <^ ■? ^ jfc r •«»' ^ 

* "lip 






^vrj 








ft 


'5S' - .^’"' 



1 

• ^ ■ -.-*1 

t \:^jrj0Lry \ ■ . *- ^ 

I ' -T ^ 

F ' ' "'T^' ' * •. 






v..it?-;V"A-:3fefe 




i) ‘ • 


a. - 


^ . 


•■.T i' 



4j* .•■'fc,-. ■’t.":'-:g^^ 



A*-’. 

■^- ^Sfr.vvAv - S' 



■ - # 

. >^ J- 

ii ’ 


-■ J k*", . 




«*#* 

_ j • 

^:r AA 


•• « 

*tA, 

■*» 

• ■ ‘ 1 

• 

- • • ^ - ».w 




~ / “ ■/ ^ ,'» I* • ■•- - %**» * »-• St ^ • *, ■• 




r. ■ ^ iT -ilt' V * 
.. ir~ ')5^vr^ ^ 



_ ^ • r. '■ til - . ) 

^ ^'■; ^‘V*. _ •'^ 

‘ i-y-r,/'-'‘^ 1',' -V ■ 1? : 


V ‘? 




;r * Vi ^ 

ft 






r^A'. A'JA; 1 

\ ^ ^ 




ij;.'*:a(i£»ai 



















V. 




: / 

Xl <* -f n . A 


A 

S> ,ON.C -?- 



0 N C ^ ^ - ^ A « -V .-<ji 

^ Cr >>^ v 

« c?0 » r ^ -,y 

't^ * = X^ -'^xr 

'' kV ^ " %«A%- > ^ 

'>•' ^ .Tr,"'\# rA’ ^' 

■A, "' \' -.'••f,, , 0 '^ V 

^ ^ . .A '^. c 




A V 1^ . "A c”" = « A"' '* '' 0- 

. A c^ A ^ A °- -0 ' 

~ ■^» VO O ~-^'S S\.\U]X »« ' VX" _ ' 

-< A* V ^ <■ o^ 



d A 




'-o * - ” '"vA"' • • ‘''' " 

^ - 



o o^, . 


V 

■'"'" A rO Q~. I- 

"> ’~°'A -’‘“'A *“' 

'Kc A 

A V , , . 

O 




d A Ail 

^ ^ 0 « v ■*' '\ 

oO'''”A^A A .-° 


■’oo'' 


* 1 ^ 
^ A '=tf - 

< 1^1 X> > 


^ * 9 H 0 ^ ^ 

X* ■ 0^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

A> - .A 

A' 0 N c . ^ ^ 

■o A <- ^ o .0‘v^ 

■< ^4- v^ ® " 

<i v 5 ^ri ^ V 

A’ 



o 

A ^ A> '■ 

'L, '^' ^ 'y 

^ ^ ^ -a' 

V"*'\oA''**/V"’ 

-K^^ A' - ' 

f* <. “^1*^ « 


.A 

\C' , * 0 It \ ■> 

^ <•''"♦ ‘Co A . 0 

' " ' \ A 

^ 'c*. ' 

^ o 


\\' ^ 



V o .vO o^ 

?> -s \ Xf. 



Xp -> 
^ Ai- V 


- ''a- A 

o’?-■»-»,A ■■" 
■ ■'^ '"AAA'- % 

_ y ^w^/ yx^ z; > 


C' 

•»> <i? C’ 

- N ^<iy 

"'' ^ 

0 '^ Ai ^ ^ 

'K~, A *“ 

u 00 ' 

<■ 4 ^ * 

vptrc ly A. ' 

,*''A‘ %.'^ ■,'^ 0 ’’■^-‘ 

' v' s'** '> ’ " ,0> V 

■" ■*»»' ' ,* A*-' ’■ 

A- - * 



v « 0 ^ 


A 


* aV .P 

Xs>- 



‘Sj d> -4 Cp 

a'' „nc %y'<T.\ 

^ c^ A t«^ -p 

'"00'' 


A' 


o ^ A A I' 

'■^ * " '* v?-'^ ''” ' 

V 
















































✓ 

* a K 0 ■■ o * 8 1 vV*' 

- .0^ »'‘*°, 



C, 1^ 

-V ® 

^ -V ■^’ 

s * V 

cp\v^^V 

'. ■’oo'' '? i 

0,'^' ''.y ^ Cp ^ \ 

V\,^V. '^Z/ > .0^ ,^^*0/- ' 

a- ^ .'‘o '^- V. 

^ ^ , 31 ® 1 "' '<^ 

* <8,^ .. ^ ^V >P^ 





O .1*5 


0 « X .A O ,0 < 

* ' ' ® >f <P SV . 0 N f;. -y.;* ' * o •' ^ « X t B . ' 

A'i '" •>-^ 

■’io' : 

rU J> ^ O _0 O * L. -a r ri, 

v'Vi:,;j ^‘ ° I/'- ^ °^c. 'v'\ ^ ‘ ^ ° V 

J' ' a'^ r (c2 *- ^ . a'» 

\> **■ « <>*. ^‘'V 




'f » 

^ ^ V' \8^ 

j<^ V 1 B 0 ^ K , 

t!^.' .•>‘* 

^ V = xO ^ 

i> 




c3 C3 

^ 4' ,^ >, - 

» 5 cv ■* . 

,•0'- x""*, 

^ "^j. aX <«. 

. ■^ 00 '' .', ^ 


' cf' \ 

0 .Jx 



: .0 i ^ 



X.. o»• ^ *»x: * • - • 

>0 (\I\^6 ^ '^'r \\> '*' rlA S» /K ^ '^’n \V 

-- . i}\l?,//>;, ? ,^'^ o ' '^■'"^ • ° ■•* 

^ ^ ^ X/ o 

,10 0 ‘^ K ~ .\ ’ „k;, ■‘ft * 

rtV « ' ' ® « <d 0 

ft -cxfsr. '*• vJ C. ^ 

V. ^ ^yrr^ ^ 

> '' ^ 0 

- 




^ x' 

ft ft ’ t< 

o" ^ 

z- V "■ 

ft o o' 

y '4 ' " 

s"' /a*^ 

V.. <»r 



-' H> - 


-.v 



»- ^ - yy’^sy ■ -T; 

? -5x^ ' *' ^ ^ ^ 

^ V ® rxX 

*<■ / -'jJSX'- \ A» • *- ■'“ 






ci', ^ 


aV 



ft .s> 

Z V 


A’^>’ % 




y o « K .A x!5 '^ / ..s'* xO . ■<r' ^ 0 ft X ^ .‘\ 

^ aX r 0 ^ rvv ft V ' « 8 V a\ . 0 n c . 

\V ^ ,*0 V ^ «<f V n 

'p . * .4r^5^^v-x. ^ 8. U ^ .v^ . ■* ,^>v.^'' 

s^ 



•t 

A"*! 

_^^ . -v.- 

> ' 'CL^ ~^ri* 

'■ NA Z- -.--NA vyj- ^ rv 

■V d' . ^*‘ fjj r_- ^ 

'“ vy-i:. ^''> " ~° ,.0^ .X , 

V" X. ^ r . f<J 'f>^ 


«(• 






vV 


.1^ 

-,. ‘t'^^XI"' * A'- ft ___ ^ 

c o~.X''^> 

^ <f>^ A^ c ® ^ ,'0 N 

■i ^ f'» ft w X* 

^ '^, X^ o'" •>' 't 

1^ 



A -r. b°°-<' *, 

v''-y • yy^ 

’^' \V> ^ A • ^ /Tl */> \X'' 

.< V -• ,^P»S •: z ^ 


9 I X 


N o5 ■^C^' ^ 

H" xX' ^ 



V> 

X X 



_ !* X« 

































































